Should Priests Get Married?

[Helen]

I have nothing to do.
What's Breadman up to?

Still slaying dragons I think.

 

[Nomad]

TRANSLATION:
"You backed me into a corner - so I'll make an impotent comment instead f addressing the issue."

That's what I thought . . .

You really have quite a desperate imagination. Here, let me assist you.

Translation:

It doesn't matter if you call it 'discipline' or 'doctrine.' It's still error.

 

[Nomad]

Hi nomad,

If he chooses to be celibate he can become a priest. If he chooses not to be celibate he MUST, according to scripture, get married. No one is forced to become a priest and no one is forced to marry....with one caveat. If you don't want to be celibate you have to get married.

It's not a matter of 'handling' it. It is a matter of making a choice and they have YEARS to think about this choice.

Mary

Mary I'm afraid you are incredibly confused about what's being discussed here. I hope you figure it out. Peace.

 

[Nomad]

It's absolutely a free choice.

I chose NOT to be a priest - but my friend CHOSE to be one.
Neither of us were "forced" into our decision, so your false charge is dead in the water . . .

Your false dichotomy is pure deception. I don't believe for a second that you don't understand. The man who wants to be a priest/leader, but does not want to be celibate must choose one or the other. According to Rome he cannot have both. According to Scripture he can have both. Rome errs.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You really have quite a desperate imagination. Here, let me assist you.

Translation:

It doesn't matter if you call it 'discipline' or 'doctrine.' It's still error.

No - it's a discipline that is supported by Scripture, as I have AMPLY shown.

YOUR denial of Scripture doesn't make it "error" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your false dichotomy is pure deception. I don't believe for a second that you don't understand. The man who wants to be a priest/leader, but does not want to be celibate must choose one or the other. According to Rome he cannot have both. According to Scripture he can have both. Rome errs.

Really??
Show me where Scripture says that you can become a priest and get married.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[Nomad]

Really??
Show me where Scripture says that you can become a priest and get married.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

It looks like you haven't been paying attention. We've been over this already. Your very first so-called 'pope' had a wife. So did some of the other Apostles as well as other leaders.

1Co 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

We're also going to dispense with the unbiblical office of 'priest' and speak of the Biblical office of 'Elder.' There is absolutely no mention of a 'Christian' sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament. I demonstrated this quite clearly here: Should Priests Get Married?

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—
Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...

And just for fun... Your first pope, who clearly had a wife, also considered himself an 'elder.'

1Pe 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
1Pe 5:3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

 

[Marymog]

Mary I'm afraid you are incredibly confused about what's being discussed here. I hope you figure it out. Peace.

Hi Nomad,

So instead of debating or having a logical rebuttal to my statement you call me confused??? Is that your way of saying you lost the argument?

No confusion here my friend. This discussion is in regard to priest: Is celibacy a biblical principle?
Is it to any advantage? Disadvantage?

The Catholic Church has never said scripture requires a priest must be celibate.

As stated priviesly in post #201 Scripture CLEARLY shows it is an advantage to be celibate, just like Paul and Jesus said.

The confusing part is you never debunked/discussed/replied to post #201. Why? Because you can't come up with a logical response?

Dear friend: You are confused about a person having a choice and being forced to do something. Tell me my friend. Who is being forced to become a priest? Who is being forced to be celibate?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

It looks like you haven't been paying attention. We've been over this already. Your very first so-called 'pope' had a wife. So did some of the other Apostles as well as other leaders.

1Co 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

We're also going to dispense with the unbiblical office of 'priest' and speak of the Biblical office of 'Elder.' There is absolutely no mention of a 'Christian' sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament. I demonstrated this quite clearly here: Should Priests Get Married?

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—
Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...

And just for fun... Your first pope, who clearly had a wife, also considered himself an 'elder.'

1Pe 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
1Pe 5:3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

And apparently - YOU don't understand the time in which these letters were written - and to WHOM they were being written TO.

Paul was writing to Gentile Christians - MANY of whom were involved in polygamous marriages. His admonishment that a Bishop should be the husband of "one wife" doesn't meant that they HAD to be married. He didn't want a Bishop to be a polygamist.

Secondly - the NT wasn't written in English, but GREEK. the word Presbuteros is translated as "Presbyter".

Here is the etymology of the word, "Priest":
Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros

Presbyter and Priest are synonyms. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
Definition of presbyter
1: a member of the governing body of an early Christian church
2: a member of the order of priests in churches having episcopal hierarchies that include bishops, priests, and deacons

The word Peter uses in 1 Pet. 5:1 is "Sumpresbuteros", which is more closely translated as "fellow Priest".
So much for your anti-Catholic opinions . . .

 

[Nomad]

Paul was writing to Gentile Christians - MANY of whom were involved in polygamous marriages. His admonishment that a Bishop should be the husband of "one wife" doesn't meant that they HAD to be married. He didn't want a Bishop to be a polygamist.

I invite you to show me where I ever said marriage is a Biblical requirement. Did you really miss the point that badly or is this just a red herring that you hoped no one would notice? Again, the point I made in my previous post stands. Quite clearly there were married Apostles and elders in the NT. No one is required to be celibate in order to hold a Church office. Celibacy is a choice only for those to whom it is given as a gift from above. Period.

Secondly - the NT wasn't written in English, but GREEK. the word Presbuteros is translated as "Presbyter".

Yes, and 'presbyter' can be translated 'elder' as it comes from the Greek word 'presbutes' meaning old man. 'Presbuteros' never means 'priest' in Greek. It's hilarious that you attempt to utilize the much later co opting of the term by the RCC as a legitimate NT usage. Did you just not do your homework or did you hope no one would notice such a glaring error? Observe.

πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
Thayer Definition:
1) elder, of age
1a) the elder of two people
1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1b1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
2a) among the Jews
2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
2c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: comparative of presbus (elderly)
Citing in TDNT: 6:651, 931

Notice, 'priest' is nowhere to be found. Koine Greek has a word for 'priest.' The Greek word for 'priest' is 'hiereus' which is found 75 times in the NT and is never used to refer to a Church office.

In any case, my argument was never about nomenclature as important as that is. I'm pretty sure that didn't escape you. My point is with regard to function, not terminology. Again, there is absolutely no mention of a 'Christian' sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament. There is no Church office where one offers recurring, non bloody, propitiatory sacrifices of Christ. (See Trent.) I demonstrated this quite clearly here: Should Priests Get Married?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I invite you to show me where I ever said marriage is a Biblical requirement. Did you really miss the point that badly or is this just a red herring that you hoped no one would notice? Again, the point I made in my previous post stands. Quite clearly there were married Apostles and elders in the NT. No one is required to be celibate in order to hold a Church office. Celibacy is a choice only for those to whom it is given as a gift from above. Period.

Matt. 16:18-19 (see also Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

You see - Jesus gave His Church Supreme Authority on earth - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.

This is that He said about people like YOU who reject this Authority:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Yes, and 'presbyter' can be translated 'elder' as it comes from the Greek word 'presbutes' meaning old man. 'Presbuteros' never means 'priest' in Greek. It's hilarious that you attempt to utilize the much later co opting of the term by the RCC as a legitimate NT usage. Did you just not do your homework or did you hope no one would notice such a glaring error? Observe.

πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
Thayer Definition:
1) elder, of age
1a) the elder of two people
1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1b1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
2a) among the Jews
2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
2c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: comparative of presbus (elderly)
Citing in TDNT: 6:651, 931

Notice, 'priest' is nowhere to be found. Koine Greek has a word for 'priest.' The Greek word for 'priest' is 'hiereus' which is found 75 times in the NT and is never used to refer to a Church office.

In any case, my argument was never about nomenclature as important as that is. I'm pretty sure that didn't escape you. My point is with regard to function, not terminology. Again, there is absolutely no mention of a 'Christian' sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament. There is no Church office where one offers recurring, non bloody, propitiatory sacrifices of Christ. (See Trent.) I demonstrated this quite clearly here: Should Priests Get Married?

That's nonsense.

First of all, you state that you argument is NOT about nomenclature - THEN you state that sine the term "unbloody sacrifice" is not found in Scripture that it doesn't exists. "Trinity" and "Incarnation" aren't found in Scripture either but the teaching is there.

The teaching on the Eucharist is of paramount importance to the Gospel and is found in MANY places.
In 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a symbol.

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:
John 6:53-56
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

As I already explained to you before - the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

As for the Priesthood -in the Old Testament, there were three levels of Priests: Aaron, the High Priest, the Levitical/Ministerial Priesthood, and the rest of the people were a general priesthood of believers.

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests: Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25), the Ministerial/Levitical Priests (James 5:14-15) and the general priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

Just as with all New Testament fulfillments, the fulfillment is always more glorious than the Old Testament type.

Finally, in the Epistle of Jude, we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

 

[Nomad]

You see - Jesus gave His Church Supreme Authority on earth - that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven.

No, Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles -- all of them as Scripture plainly teaches. There is no evidence that they passed down this authority via the fabricated-out-of-whole-cloth idea of 'apostolic succession.' And the assinine idea that the Church has the authority to contradict or supercede the clear teaching of Scripture, which is what you're hawking here, is where the RCC goes off the rails in a big way. Quite frankly, it's blasphemous. But I suppose when Scripture is clearly against you, it's all you have left.

First of all, you state that you argument is NOT about nomenclature - THEN you state that sine the term "unbloody sacrifice" is not found in Scripture that it doesn't exists. "Trinity" and "Incarnation" aren't found in Scripture either but the teaching is there.

Please show me where I stated that the term 'unbloody sacrifice' is not found in Scripture. It's not in Scripture to be sure, but show me where that was my argument. Quote me exactly. For everyone's convenience, the post in question is found here: Should Priests Get Married?

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Jesus gave the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles -- all of them as Scripture plainly teaches. There is no evidence that they passed down this authority via the fabricated-out-of-whole-cloth idea of 'apostolic succession.' And the assinine idea that the Church has the authority to contradict or supercede the clear teaching of Scripture, which is what you're hawking here, is where the RCC goes off the rails in a big way. Quite frankly, it's blasphemous. But I suppose when Scripture is clearly against you, it's all you have left.

First of all - exactly what is blasphemous?
While you're at it - WHICH contradictions to the clear teaching of Scripture are you talking about??

As for Apostolic Succession - this is a CLEAR teaching of Scripture.
Acts 1:16-26 tells us that the Apostles chose another to take the office of Judas, which was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalms 109:8. The Greek word used here for "Office" is Episkopay (Bishopric). This is an office of the Church.
In Acts 15:15 we see that the Apostles told the people not to listen to anybody that they hadn’t mandated and sent out to them.

God id NOT the Author of the confusion of the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that ALL teach different doctrines while ALL claiming to have the "Truth."

Please show me where I stated that the term 'unbloody sacrifice' is not found in Scripture. It's not in Scripture to be sure, but show me where that was my argument. Quote me exactly. For everyone's convenience, the post in question is found here: Should Priests Get Married?

"Unbloody" is simply the term used for the reality of His ETERNAL Sacrifice (Rev. 13:8).
Jesus isn't "killed" all over again in the Mass or "re-sacrificed". We partake of His eternal Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

Just because Jesus died once DOESN'T mean that He DOESN'T intercede for us:
Heb. 7:25
Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

 

[Nomad]

As for Apostolic Succession - this is a CLEAR teaching of Scripture.
Acts 1:16-26 tells us that the Apostles chose another to take the office of Judas, which was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalms 109:8.

They chose someone to replace one of the original 12 for the purpose of becoming "a witness to his resurrection." There's absolutely nothing here about the authority to bind and loose being passed on to successors outside of the Apostles -- which is what the RC notion of 'apostolic succession' is all about.

Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

In Acts 15:15 we see that the Apostles told the people not to listen to anybody that they hadn’t mandated and sent out to them.

Acts 15:15 says no such thing.

"Unbloody" is simply the term used for the reality of His ETERNAL Sacrifice (Rev. 13:8).

There is no such thing an unbloody sacrifice that is propitiatory. Trent errs.

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Christ's sacrifice was 'once for all.' There are no repeats -- unbloody or otherwise.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Just because Jesus died once DOESN'T mean that He DOESN'T intercede for us:

I don't recall anyone arguing that he doesn't.