Should Priests Get Married?

[Frank Lee]

Revelations 22:10,exactly what I am saying.

Ezekiel chapter 34 God rebukes the false shepherds and goes Himself to seek the wandering sheep that have no shepherd.

Such was I and I owe Him my all.

Jesus paid it all, let to Him I owe. Sin had left a crimson stain He washed it white as snow!

God be praised!

 

[GodsGrace]

Our children were home schooled and met the Lord at home though we attended church.

It IS NOT the role of the church to teach the children. The parents must do this. All our children need was live and the word of God. Supposing that this word of God is not enough is a serious error. We see churches filled with entertainment rather that God's words and revival is sorely needed.

I agree with the above too.
I didn't intend teaching. Parents are the first, or at least should be, to teach their children about God. Children have a God shaped hole in them that only God can fill. Children that know God seem different --- more "complete".

For instance in the Protestant churches we celebrate Dedications, Weddings.
In the Catholic churches the first communion is celebrated --- celebrations of this type tend to remain with children. This is what I meant.

 

[Frank Lee]

I see myself as appointed to encourage and watch over others. I am always amazed at how many will hold to religion and tradition rather than God's word. But Jesus spent much of His earthly ministry fighting tradition and dead religion. Nothing has improved.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see myself as appointed to encourage and watch over others. I am always amazed at how many will hold to religion and tradition rather than God's word. But Jesus spent much of His earthly ministry fighting tradition and dead religion. Nothing has improved.

The Pharisees promoted a dead religion. They were so concerned with rules and regulations and even ceremonies, that they totally removed all spirituality from the Jewish faith. Jesus wanted to replace that lost spirituality. This is why we say that we have a heart relationship with God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're in a heap if trouble if you depart from the written word. Joseph Smith, Mohammed and others received "revelations". That pervert gods word. My condolences to you.

And YOU'RE in a heap of trouble if you reject the very Scriptures that you claim to adhere to by ignoring the fact that they don't point to themselves as our "Sole" Authority. Paul said to hold fast the the ORAL as well as the Written (2 Thess. 2:15).

NOWHERE in Scripture do we see that the Scriptures are our sole Authority. HOWEVER, we DO see that Christ's Church has been given Supreme Authority. WHATEVER it ordains on earth shall also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Your false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is simply a man-made fallacy that as ZERO basis in the very Scriptures it upholds as our "Sole" Authority.
Interesting . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I must say that the term pastor was not used when I was growing up. It could have just been that I missed it.
Also, when someone states something, they believe it to be true and they are NOT lying. We've been through this before. You really should stop calling people liars.
A lie is when you KNOW something is wrong and you try to pass if off as truth.

First of all - I have never called anybody on this forum a "Liar", so that accusation is in itself, a LIE.

Secondly - I agree that if a person believes something to be true - that they are not technically lying. In Rollo's case, however - He not only grew up in the Catholic Church - he has been told corrected repeatedly - and has repeatedly told the same falsehoods

In HIS case, he is lying..

 

[GodsGrace]

First of all - I have never called anybody on this forum a "Liar", so that accusation is in itself, a LIE.

Secondly - I agree that if a person believes something to be true - that they are not technically lying. In Rollo's case, however - He not only grew up in the Catholic Church - he has been told corrected repeatedly - and has repeatedly told the same falsehoods

In HIS case, he is lying..

If you tell someone they're lying, you're, in effect, calling them a liar.
If I tell you that you murdered someone, I'm calling you a murderer.
Etc.
This is an easy concept to understand....
If you understand scripture, you must surely understand this.
BTW, I don't tell lies. I don't see any reason to.
Maybe you could stop calling me a liar and act like an adult?

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you tell someone they're lying, you're, in effect, calling them a liar.
If I tell you that you murdered someone, I'm calling you a murderer.
Etc.
This is an easy concept to understand....
If you understand scripture, you must surely understand this.
BTW, I don't tell lies. I don't see any reason to.
Maybe you could stop calling me a liar and act like an adult?

That's not true at all.
I know plenty of basically honest people how have told lies and I still consider them basically honest people. My wife has lied but she's not a liar.

A person who gets drunk once isn't a "drunkard". A person who gets drunk OFTEN is a drunkard.

CALLING somebody a "Liar" is calling them a liar.
Catching them in a lie is not "calling" them anything.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's not true at all.
I know plenty of basically honest people how have told lies and I still consider them basically honest people. My wife has lied but she's not a liar.

A person who gets drunk once isn't a "drunkard". A person who gets drunk OFTEN is a drunkard.

CALLING somebody a "Liar" is calling them a liar.
Catching them in a lie is not "calling" them anything.

LOL
Are you a sinner because you sin,
Or do you sin because you're a sinner?

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks. It does seem as though there's no biblical reason why a priest should not be able to get married.

GodsGrace,

I'm of the view that the RCC has imposed on priests a 'calling' for which some are not equipped. The Scriptures present the view (supported by the Scriptures given above) that celibacy is for those with that gift (1 Cor 7:7).

If RC priests don't have the gift, they should not be in the priesthood.

The better solution would be for the RCC to follow the biblical teaching that only those with the gift of celibacy should be celibate. Therefore, married priests should be encouraged to join the priesthood.

No wonder seminary numbers have dwindled so much in RC seminaries. Could it be that the numbers in seminary represent the true percentage of those with the gift of celibacy?

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

I'm of the view that the RCC has imposed on priests a 'calling' for which some are not equipped. The Scriptures present the view (supported by the Scriptures given above) that celibacy is for those with that gift (1 Cor 7:7).

If RC priests don't have the gift, they should not be in the priesthood.

The better solution would be for the RCC to follow the biblical teaching that only those with the gift of celibacy should be celibate. Therefore, married priests should be encouraged to join the priesthood.

No wonder seminary numbers have dwindled so much in RC seminaries. Could it be that the numbers in seminary represent the true percentage of those with the gift of celibacy?

Oz

Great point.
I could tell you things...
Here are two:
A priest that likes women friends. It may not be more, but it looks bad.
A priest that is tired of being alone and would like to be married. He's 71.

 

[Frank Lee]

I hope dear God'sGrace you're not talking tobme about the lying thing! I don't think I called anyone this did I? If so forgive me.??

Sometimes who's saying what to whom becomes confusing in these discussions

About this guy whoever he is, that said my admonition to stick to the written Bible alone was "Rubbish" I will just ignore him. Anyone knows that anything not written in the word is suspect. It's a deadly thing in departing from the Bible. I'm amazed anyone would support words being added.

I refuse text fist fights as they serve no purpose but to point out the lack of maturity of the participants.

.

 

[GodsGrace]

I hope dear God'sGrace you're not talking tobme about the lying thing! I don't think I called anyone this did I? If so forgive me.??

Sometimes who's saying what to whom becomes confusing in these discussions

About this guy whoever he is, that said my admonition to stick to the written Bible alone was "Rubbish" I will just ignore him. Anyone knows that anything not written in the word is suspect. It's a deadly thing in departing from the Bible. I'm amazed anyone would support words being added.

I refuse text fist fights as they serve no purpose but to point out the lack of maturity of the participants.

.

No worries. I was speaking to breadoflife.
He calls me, and others, a liar when he doesn't agree.
I know you would never do this.

 

[Nomad]

Rubbish.

The Word of God is NOT limited to th the written Word (Scripture).
Scripture itself assures us of this . . .

Inspired oral teaching was certainly valid at the time it was given, but unless it was preserved in writing it passes away with the speaker and his initial audience. If you wish to deny this, then please direct me to the content of your "oral tradition" along with documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present day. This latter part is important. If you can't trace your inspired oral teaching back to its inspired source it's authority is highly questionable. Actually, it's useless.

 

[Frank Lee]

Inspired oral teaching was certainly valid at the time it was given, but unless it was preserved in writing it passes away with the speaker and his initial audience. If you wish to deny this, then please direct me to the content of your "oral tradition" along with documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present day. This latter part is important. If you can't trace your inspired oral teaching back to its inspired source it's authority is highly questionable. Actually, it's useless.

Unless it's written down between Genesis and revelations it can be classified as BLATHER.

The devils ROFL when Joseph Smith received his "new revelations" from a supposed angel named (drumroll and kazoo) Moroni! Same for MOhammed. Deception of humans is pretty simple. That people follow these men in the millions is scary.

 

[aspen]

The bottom line here folks is simple. While unmarried and celibate is better for ministry, it's not a requirement. And it only applies to those who "are able to receive it" (Matt. 19:12) and those who have been given this "gift" (1 Cor. 7:7). Rome goes off the rails by making it a requirement.

Well, besides being guilty by Catholic.....

 

[BreadOfLife]

Inspired oral teaching was certainly valid at the time it was given, but unless it was preserved in writing it passes away with the speaker and his initial audience. If you wish to deny this, then please direct me to the content of your "oral tradition" along with documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present day. This latter part is important. If you can't trace your inspired oral teaching back to its inspired source it's authority is highly questionable. Actually, it's useless.

Actually - we have the testimony of the Early Church to back up the Oral Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

For example - MOST of you Protestants reject Infant Baptism - but the Early Church Fathers tell us that this practice was handed down to them by the Apostles. It was UNANIMOUSLY accepted, taught and practiced by the Early Church. In fact - the ONLY argument they had about it was WHEN to baptize: 30 days? 8 days? Immediately after birth?

Irenaeus
He came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Unless it's written down between Genesis and revelations it can be classified as BLATHER.

That's a pretty ignorant statement - and one that Jesus Himself would disagree with.

Jesus and the NT writers not only believed and adhered to Oral Tradition - they used it in their writings.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely ORAL TRADITION.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[Nomad]

Actually - we have the testimony of the Early Church to back up the Oral Traditions handed down by the Apostles.

For example - MOST of you Protestants reject Infant Baptism - but the Early Church Fathers tell us that this practice was handed down to them by the Apostles. It was UNANIMOUSLY accepted, taught and practiced by the Early Church. In fact - the ONLY argument they had about it was WHEN to baptize: 30 days? 8 days? Immediately after birth?

Irenaeus
He came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

That's it? I asked to see the "content" of your oral tradition and documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present. Your earliest source not only writes toward the end of the second century, which puts him about 100 years after the fact, he doesn't mention baptism in your quote at all. Suffice it to say, your earliest example fails to demonstrate content or evidence of transmission. Oh and btw, Scripture addresses baptism and there's not a single example of paedobaptism throughout.

 

[aspen]

That's it? I asked to see the "content" of your oral tradition and documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present. Your earliest source not only writes toward the end of the second century, which puts him about 100 years after the fact, he doesn't mention baptism in your quote at all. Suffice it to say, your earliest example fails to demonstrate content or evidence of transmission. Oh and btw, Scripture addresses baptism and there's not a single example of paedobaptism throughout.

Hmm...guess you better throw out the Pentateuch, huh Nomad? It was written down hundreds of years after it was passed down orally.