Truth? Is Scripture - Scripture

[Traveler]

Thank you for your concern, Traveler, but I do not believe in my heart that other things are more pleasing to God, we are each called for a specific purpose, and God wishes us to be like children, trusting in His Divine and Holy Will.  Just as each body part has a specific purpose, so do we, each called to fulfill a purpose.  I'm sure this is something you also believe.  But, how can I be like a child for Him if I can't trust in His written word, His Divine guidance?  (Going back to the OP).  But I know that I can.  I trust Him with my whole heart, for He has revealed Himself to me in many ways since I was a child, most of the time unexpected, only to be seen in hindsight.  Other times, it was very obvious!!!  Everything He has done for me has helped me become who I am today, and I know that I can trust in Him, in everything.  Do not worry for my soul, for that would be judging, but please pray for me and I will pray for you :)

 

I have deliberately stepped back to clear things a little and allow others that may have input to give opinion.  There are a few things that I believe are of paramount importance in this discussion.  The first point I intend to highlight is the divine importance of gender in realizing the purpose of human creation.  Some may disagree but I find no logical, scientific or religious reason in gender beyond the necessity to propagate the human family.  I do not find any criticism in G-d making the first commandment to mankind directly related to gender and purpose of gender to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

All other commandments also have importance but gender is critical.  Without gender mankind will forever end existence.   Spiderman is told that with great power comes great responsibility.  I believe that to every person gender is power of creation in the very image and likeness of G-d and with that power also comes specific responsibilities.   Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote:

 

 

It is time … to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

 

 

 

 

We have obligation by our gender to multiply and replenish the earth.  We also have humanitarian obligations as humans to assist in care for the infirmed, the widows, the fatherless, the aged and the unjustly oppressed.   I believe that it is possible that G-d would call one to champion one great cause but I do not believe that G-d would issue such a call to champion one and exclude or command to exclude the other.  The difference is between the thinking and purposes generated by man and the limitless abilities of G-d and those called of G-d to do his work.

 

I have learned that hypocrisy is a most deadly and corrupting temptation of leadership – especially traditional religious leadership.  We see this in full bloom among the Pharisees and Scribes in the covenant house of Israel when Jesus came and walked among us.  Hypocrisy is the excuse that causes or allows leaders to teach a principle that they themselves do not observe or keep.

 

My final concern in this discussion has been the decline in respect for gender and the roll gender plays in providing the means that the next generation comes to be and is cared for and raised.  If the obligation of gender can be discarded by those that are considered and given title of being “Holy” the very foundation of the divine institution is both weakened and newly established on sifting and unstable or unsustainable ground and when the winds and storms arise such a structure will not stand.  We are seeing more than ever that the divine institution of marriage is so threatened that if continued on the current course will become the single threat to humanity.  We know and have proof that broken marriages is an engine of poverty, social disruptions that include crimes, injustices, prejudices, hatreds, wars and all things that will collapse humanitarian efforts and bring humans into bondage spiritually as well as physically.

 

Though I appreciate the lip service that some religious leaders ascribe to in their declarations - I do not believe such efforts without example to be sufficient or a clear light shining in the darkness as the one and only way. 

 

I pray that all seeking truth find it and find the faith and strength through G-d to support it by actions and not just words.

[faith4]

 

We have obligation by our gender to multiply and replenish the earth. (Yup) We also have humanitarian obligations as humans to assist in care for the infirmed, the widows, the fatherless, the aged and the unjustly oppressed.  I agree.  I believe that it is possible that G-d would call one to champion one great cause but I do not believe that G-d would issue such a call to champion one and exclude or command to exclude the other.  We do not believe that God champions one, or commands to exclude, the other.  Again, "and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (says JESUS). (Matt 19:12).  Jesus is NOT commanding men to give up marriage, but He is saying that this is acceptable, and those who can accept it, should.  Are you not reading my posts?  The Church does not FORCE or COMMAND ANY PERSON to give up marriage, the Church does NOT teach that God is ONLY satisfied w/celibate persons.  

  

My final concern in this discussion has been the decline in respect for gender and the roll gender plays in providing the means that the next generation comes to be and is cared for and raised  This is due in large part to the acceptance of contraception, not celibate priests.  Please read Humanae Vitae, the encyclical letter written by Pope Paul VI on this very issue. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.  It is extremely prophetic. 

 

If the obligation of gender can be discarded (???) by those that are considered and given title of being “Holy” the very foundation of the divine institution is both weakened and newly established on sifting and unstable or unsustainable ground and when the winds and storms arise such a structure will not stand.  Wooooow. Sorry Jesus, it looks as though any divine institution you build will always be doomed to weakness and instability since you discarded your gender obligation in favor of teaching and dying for us.  I honestly cannot fathom how you came to such a conclusion.  The Catholic Church has stood now for 2000 years...while great empires have come and gone, the Church has withstood the test of time and great trials (FAR greater trials than your own young church has yet to deal with) and will continue to, as promised by Christ. We are seeing more than ever that the divine institution of marriage is so threatened that if continued on the current course will become the single threat to humanity.  We know and have proof that broken marriages is an engine of poverty, social disruptions that include crimes, injustices, prejudices, hatreds, wars and all things that will collapse humanitarian efforts and bring humans into bondage spiritually as well as physically. We fully agree.  Priests being celibate, have nothing to do w/the increasing threat of broken marriages and families.

 

Though I appreciate the lip service that some religious leaders ascribe to in their declarations - I do not believe such efforts without example to be sufficient or a clear light shining in the darkness as the one and only way.  Oh look, more opinion. 

 

I pray that all seeking truth find it and find the faith and strength through G-d to support it by actions and not just words.  I pray the same. 

[Guest]

 From your response, I don't think you understand what I'm saying either, but that is understandable, since we belong to different faiths and have different beliefs. 

 

 

Oh but I do.  I was Catholic longer than I am LDS.

 

 

 

 

As a Catholic, I am merely responding to your accusation that celibacy is a contradiction, and somehow Catholics, therefore, don't love family life b/c of it.  I'm not trying to disprove your beliefs.  I expect that you would do the same if our positions were swapped.    

 

 

 

But then I never said the bolded part.  But yes, holding family life as important and then asking priests to refrain from marriage is a contradiction.

 

 

The Church does not forbid a man to marry.  Any man who wishes to enter the seminary and become a priest, does so on his own account, he is not forced.  He freely chooses a life of celibacy.  Same with the women, they choose this.  During seminary, a man has several years to discern if this is something he wants, if this is truly his vocation.  He can always leave seminary, he is not forced to become a priest.  After years of discernment, a man or woman take their final vows, but again, they are not forced. 

 

Oh, but the Church does.  The Holy Priesthood is denied those who are married.  So yes, you can choose - you either have a Family or you have the Priesthood.  You can't have both.  As Holy Priesthood is a divine calling that requires celibacy, the Church's position is that there are Divine Callings that require one to not have a family - hence, the contradiction.

 

As far as the eunochs in your favorite scripture of this thread - those refer to people who, through no fault of their own, are not married and cannot have children or people like homosexuals or psychologically or physically handicapped, etc. who chose to remain celibate as a better alternative in their specific life's challenge.  They are not lesser in God's eyes.

[andypg]

A year ago I took a course on the Gospel and letters of John. It was one of the best classes I've taken in college in it we learned that the Gospel of John went through 3 different editions each with their own characteristics (so I can listen to an excerpt and can most of the time tell which edition that passage was written in). The letters of John were written between the edotions (1 John written between 1E and 2E while 2 John written between 2E and 3E).

Anyways, the class made us confront the fact that the Gospel was written over a long period of time, went through 3 editions where things were added to make up wlthe text we have today, and yet, despite this history, it is still scripture and still inspired by God.

[faith4]

Oh but I do.  I was Catholic longer than I am LDS.

 

No.  No you don't.  I am unimpressed by this statement, your ignorance in what the Church truly teaches on this topic shows.  

 

 

 

But then I never said the bolded part.  But yes, holding family life as important and then asking priests to refrain from marriage is a contradiction.

 

You implied it by declaring celibacy a contradition, after I stated that family life is also important to Catholics.  And no, it's not a contradiction, you simply refuse to understand the teaching. 

 

Oh, but the Church does.  The Holy Priesthood is denied those who are married.  So yes, you can choose - you either have a Family or you have the Priesthood.  You can't have both.  As Holy Priesthood is a divine calling that requires celibacy, the Church's position is that there are Divine Callings that require one to not have a family - hence, the contradiction.

 

Men who are priests in the Anglican Church (or Epicsopalian) can become priests in the Catholic Church when they convert, even though they are married.  They are not required, nor expected, to get a divorce.  I personally know a priest who is in this situation, and has been a priest in my diocese for a very long time (at least 20 years) and is still married.  It's not always an either/or case like you think it is.  Furthermore, men who are widowed and wish to become priests, can do so.  I've met priests such as this as well, who have children and grandchildren.  These men are not excluded b/c they were once married.  And, this is not a dogma, it is not a requirement.  It stems from Tradition, most likely from St. Paul who himself chose celibacy and encouraged it.    

 

As far as the eunochs in your favorite scripture of this thread - those refer to people who, through no fault of their own, are not married and cannot have children or people like homosexuals or psychologically or physically handicapped, etc. who chose to remain celibate as a better alternative in their specific life's challenge.  They are not lesser in God's eyes.

 

Right, that's part of the verse, but the part I keep highlighting, you know the one you apparently keep forgetting to read, makes it very clear that Jesus is referring to those men who give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom, by choice (after all, how can you accept a fault that's not of their own making??).   "Some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom.  Whoever can accept this ought to accept it".  Is Jesus asking the men to accept homosexuality, and saying they should?  Or a physical or psychological handicap?  And I never stated anyone who does have those things are lesser in God's eyes. I also gave other scriptural references to this teaching, you're choosing to ignore them.   Here's another one for you to ignore:  "[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."  He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted." (Matt 19:10-11). 

[Traveler]

 

We have obligation by our gender to multiply and replenish the earth. (Yup) We also have humanitarian obligations as humans to assist in care for the infirmed, the widows, the fatherless, the aged and the unjustly oppressed.  I agree.  I believe that it is possible that G-d would call one to champion one great cause but I do not believe that G-d would issue such a call to champion one and exclude or command to exclude the other.  We do not believe that God champions one, or commands to exclude, the other.  Again, "and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (says JESUS). (Matt 19:12).  Jesus is NOT commanding men to give up marriage, but He is saying that this is acceptable, and those who can accept it, should.  Are you not reading my posts?  The Church does not FORCE or COMMAND ANY PERSON to give up marriage, the Church does NOT teach that God is ONLY satisfied w/celibate persons.  

  

My final concern in this discussion has been the decline in respect for gender and the roll gender plays in providing the means that the next generation comes to be and is cared for and raised  This is due in large part to the acceptance of contraception, not celibate priests.  Please read Humanae Vitae, the encyclical letter written by Pope Paul VI on this very issue. http://www.vatican.v...e-vitae_en.html.  It is extremely prophetic. 

 

If the obligation of gender can be discarded (???) by those that are considered and given title of being “Holy” the very foundation of the divine institution is both weakened and newly established on sifting and unstable or unsustainable ground and when the winds and storms arise such a structure will not stand.  Wooooow. Sorry Jesus, it looks as though any divine institution you build will always be doomed to weakness and instability since you discarded your gender obligation in favor of teaching and dying for us.  I honestly cannot fathom how you came to such a conclusion.  The Catholic Church has stood now for 2000 years...while great empires have come and gone, the Church has withstood the test of time and great trials (FAR greater trials than your own young church has yet to deal with) and will continue to, as promised by Christ. We are seeing more than ever that the divine institution of marriage is so threatened that if continued on the current course will become the single threat to humanity.  We know and have proof that broken marriages is an engine of poverty, social disruptions that include crimes, injustices, prejudices, hatreds, wars and all things that will collapse humanitarian efforts and bring humans into bondage spiritually as well as physically. We fully agree.  Priests being celibate, have nothing to do w/the increasing threat of broken marriages and families.

 

Though I appreciate the lip service that some religious leaders ascribe to in their declarations - I do not believe such efforts without example to be sufficient or a clear light shining in the darkness as the one and only way.  Oh look, more opinion. 

 

I pray that all seeking truth find it and find the faith and strength through G-d to support it by actions and not just words.  I pray the same. 

 

Let’s take a quick look at a few things.  First I would point out that throughout the Old Testament there was no such thing as celibacy being part of dedicating one’s self to G-d.  In fact it is quite the opposite.  Marriage was considered an integral part of dedicating one’s self to G-d and the service of G-d.

 

The second point.  At the time of Jesus the tradition of marriage was still an integral part of clergy dedicating themselves to Priestly service and given in the example of Zechariah (also mentioned in the Quran).  The historical norm for those in divine service was to be married throughout the period covered in scripture for both the Old and New Testament.

 

Third point.  Paul tells us in his book of Hebrews that Jesus was an ordained minister of the priesthood and specifically that Jesus was ordained a High Priest in the priestly order of Melchizedek.  This is an ancient order dating back at least to the time of Abraham and an order of priesthood that did not practice celibacy.  But there is more to this point because Paul was not a Christian when this ordination of Jesus to the priesthood took place.  The only way that Paul would have known this, is if it was generally known and taught among the first Christians.  However the specifics of Jesus being ordained a High Priest are missing in our current Christian canon of Scripture.  Meaning that critical information once very much part of the landscape of Christian knowledge specific to the life of Jesus is now completely missing and lost.

 

Forth point.  A very important historian, Flavius Josephus gives us insight into the Middle Eastern landscape and tradition of the time and place of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity.  At the time we learn that early Christianity was considered a variant of Judaism (not a separate religion) and in all of Josephus’ writing he does not distinguish Christianity from main stream Judaism with celibate clergy priests.   This would be especially odd because Josephus specifically wrote because he claimed that there was an effort to change and alter Jewish traditions and understanding of doctrine – including marriage.  One such doctrine concerned the view marriage at the time of the flood of Noah and according to Josephus; changing the “order” of marriage was one of the reasons G-d destroyed the society of man with the flood.  We are left to speculate what is meant by the order of marriage – especially since celibacy was not part of the standard order of anyone in service of G-d in the day of Noah.  Noah being the prime example.

 

I could continue with a litany of reasons that marriage was the norm and standard among the Jews that were dedicated to serving G-d at the time of Jesus.  And that the Pharisees, which would in any way possible attempt to discredit Jesus and his followers – never mentioned Jesus or his followers as practicing celibacy.  Yet they called Jesus Rabbi and Master which would be most odd to have given him such a traditional title had Jesus been celibate. 

 

My final point is that in the discussion of Jesus being married – there is no definitive proof that he was or was not.  This brings us to two problems in this matter.  First is that if the understanding of dedicating one’s self to G-d in the priesthood and specific service was deliberately changed by Jesus or his apostles as no longer the historical norm – one would think that such an important change would be directly addressed by Jesus or his apostles.  But such specific address is conspicuously missing.  But we do find that in many places – mostly among Gnostic Christians that some early Christians believed Jesus to be married – but this is never mentioned by the Apostles as a heresy of the time.  The other important consideration is that those that insist that Jesus was not married and that celibacy was an actual requirement or norm of priestly service and dedication to G-d among the first Christians are left with the burden to prove such a notion – it should not be those that would believe marriage necessary according to the divine and undisputed commandment to multiple and replenish to prove something outside of the norm and historical tradition of the time and place.  And conclusive proof that Jesus was celibate just is not provided anywhere.  This would not be the first time that religious Christian tradition (like the example of an earth centered solar system) was taught as divine doctrine but simply was not true or viable divine doctrine.

 

BTW – do you know what was done anciently to a male make them a eunuch?  I suspect it is not what you think it is.

[faith4]

Wonderful Traveler!  :)   You bring up very good points, and I would like to have the time to address each one, but I will not have that time today (I have a church committee meeting to prepare for this afternoon...and I foolishly let my boys invite friends over for a pool party this afternoon in celebration of school ending, I have cookies to make since I will soon be overrun by a small army of little boys!!!  ).  I already write too much and this has potential to be a very very long reply!  Each of these points you bring up have already been answered, discussed and taught throughout the 2000 year history of the Church, by some of the Doctors of the Church.  None of these points btw, point to celibacy as a contradition as you may suppose it does, and I am very familiar with the Jewish historian Josephus.

 

To physically make a man a eunech, he was castrated, rendering him physically unable to have relations w/a woman.  The word can also be used to describe a man who is celibate, no physical impediment, but b/c he wished to abstain from procreation.  Depends on which Bible translation you use, sometimes the word used is celibate, not eunech. 

 

God bless, I hope you have a wonderful day!  :)   

[faith4]

Okay, I'm goint to try and keep this short and simple, and take each point one by one, so it may take me a few days to get through all of them since my boys will be out of school early today (last day) and I can't take the time I would like to study and check references.

Please be patient with me!  And I want to say thank you, I don't think you realized just how much you made my day yesterday with your previous post (as strange as that must sound!).  This type of dicsussion is so much more reasonable.  :)  

 

Let’s take a quick look at a few things.  First I would point out that throughout the Old Testament there was no such thing as celibacy being part of dedicating one’s self to G-d.  In fact it is quite the opposite.  Marriage was considered an integral part of dedicating one’s self to G-d and the service of G-d.

 

 

On this first point, you are partly right, and partly wrong.  In the old covenant, priests were born into their position through natural generation.  Levites were set apart as priests for God, and therefore married in order to produce more priests, since the priesthood continued through their male offspring.  Marriage was definitely integral to the holy priesthood in the OT. 

 

Aaron was set aside as the High Priest (an office that would be passed on through the oldest son in Aaron's line), his sons and their descendants were priests, and all other Levites who did not descend from Aaron served as assistants to the priests.  Since Aaron had 24 grandchildren, the Aaronite priesthood was divided into 24 corresponding divisions (1 Chr 24:1-9), and these divisions took turns ministering at the Temple with a weekly rotating cycle.  While serving in the Temple, sexual abstinence was required of all OT priests while they served in the Temple, as well as abstaining from alcohol, since any ceremonial impurity would render the priest unable to function in the Temple. 

 

Some OT prophets were celibate, such as Elijah, Elisha and Jeremiah, though this was uncommon.  Furthermore, in the OT there were those who took a vow of consecration to the Lord, the Nazirite vow.  "This is the law for the Nazirite who takes a vow.  His offering to the Lord shall be according to his vow as a Nazirite, apart from what else he can afford.  In accordance with the vow that he takes, so shall he do according to the law for his separation as a Nazirite."  (Num. 6:21).  In Hebrew, nazirite means "consecrated" or "set apart".  Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are three examples of Nazirites, though the only one of these who included celibacy (not required) was John the Baptist.  This outward state of piety which was distinct from the priesthood, carried over into early Christianity.  Both St. Paul and St. James were Nazirites, and over time, monasticism grew from the Nazirite vow.  Christians seeking to live a "consecrated" life to the Lord, took up the examples of John the Baptist and St. Paul, centering on a life of poverty and celibacy. 

 

The Essenes as well, a third "political" party at the time of Jesus (among the Pharisees and Sadducess) had members who practiced celibacy (though I believe this was also not required to be a member).  Josephus, the Jewish historian, provides insight into this group in his book "The Jewish Wars". (Book II, ch.8) 

 

So although celibacy was uncommon, it was nonetheless not completely absent from those who lived during the time of the old covenant.  Again, in the Catholic Church, the practice of celibate priests and nuns comes from tradition (those who were celibate during the transition from old to new covenant were Paul, Timothy, John, Luke, Barnabas, Titus and Mark as well as all the earliest known bishops ordained by the Apostles...to name a few), but this tradition is not dogma.  There are rites (such as the Eastern) which allows for priests to be married, the Latin Rite does not.  A change in this teaching does not change the deposit of faith.   

 

If you have questions or comments on this post, can you hold them until I'm finished with your other points?  You don't have to obviously (this could take me a while), but it would be easier for me to focus on the rest of your points, than get stuck on this one.  Also, I may just address your questions/comments you have anyway through the rest of the posts. 

 

God bless :)     

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, I'm goint to try and keep this short and simple

 

This seems to be an impossibility in this thread. It has caused me to go temporarily blind.

[faith4]

 

 

The second point.  At the time of Jesus the tradition of marriage was still an integral part of clergy dedicating themselves to Priestly service and given in the example of Zechariah (also mentioned in the Quran).  The historical norm for those in divine service was to be married throughout the period covered in scripture for both the Old and New Testament.

 

 

Yes, the tradition was still integral b/c the priesthood was passed on through natural generation.  Priests who served in the Temple came from the Levites.  When Jesus instituted the New Covenant, the Temple was no longer necessary as a place to offer animal sacrifices to God because Jesus Himself became the final sacrifice, by offering Himself as the sacrificial Lamb.   

[faith4]

This seems to be an impossibility in this thread. It has caused me to go temporarily blind.

 Sorry, I really did try. It never looks long until I hit the post button.  

[faith4]

 

 

Third point.  Paul tells us in his book of Hebrews that Jesus was an ordained minister of the priesthood and specifically that Jesus was ordained a High Priest in the priestly order of Melchizedek.  This is an ancient order dating back at least to the time of Abraham and an order of priesthood that did not practice celibacy.  But there is more to this point because Paul was not a Christian when this ordination of Jesus to the priesthood took place.  The only way that Paul would have known this, is if it was generally known and taught among the first Christians.  However the specifics of Jesus being ordained a High Priest are missing in our current Christian canon of Scripture.  Meaning that critical information once very much part of the landscape of Christian knowledge specific to the life of Jesus is now completely missing and lost.

 

 

Okay, you know who Melchizedek was, a king and priest whom Abraham receives a blessing from.  When the law was established, only the Levites could serve as priests.  Through King David, God promised to establish the kingdom in his line forever, through the house of Judah.  Therefore, a Levite could not be a king, nor could one from the house of Judah, be a priest, the two were separate.  Jesus, born of the house of Judah, is the rightful king.  As the only begotten Son of God, firstborn male, He is also a priest (patriarchal priesthood).  Jesus is the King and Priest spoken of in Ps 110.  "Yours is princely power from the day of your birth.  In holy splendor before the daystar, like dew I begot you.  The Lord has sworn and will not waver: "You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek."". 

 

The Israelites practiced the Aaronic priesthood, and as stated in Hebrews, it is inferior to the Melchizedek priesthood, "If, then, perfection came through the levitical priesthood, on the basis of which the people received the law, what need would there still have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not reckoned according to the order of Aaron?  When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.  Now he of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, of which no member ever officiated at the altar. It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah...It is even more obvious if another priest is raised up after the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become so, not by a law expressed in a commandment concerning physical descent but by the power of life that cannot be destroyed...a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God...Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away."  Hence, the Temple is no longer necessary since Christ is a more perfect High Priest who stands before God for forever. 

 

Melchizedek signifies one who is both a priest and a king, Ps 110 is a promise that God will raise up one who will be both.  The Melchizedek priesthood was not practiced by the Israelites since their priests were not kings, and this sort of priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood.  Jesus fulfills this priesthood, and as such, is a high priest who is superior to all who had come before, and can now offer continual intercession on our behalf in the true tabernacle of heaven. "But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption...For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant".   

 

There was no phsyical ordination of Jesus (he was not a Levite, according to the Mosaic Law he could technically not be a priest according to their custom). Paul knows that Christ is both King and High Priest b/c it is revealed to him, as well as to the other Apostles.  Nothing is lost at all, all of this information was revealed to Jesus' followers beginning on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down and has always remained as part of the landscape of Christian knowledge.   

[faith4]

 

 

I could continue with a litany of reasons that marriage was the norm and standard among the Jews that were dedicated to serving G-d at the time of Jesus.  And that the Pharisees, which would in any way possible attempt to discredit Jesus and his followers – never mentioned Jesus or his followers as practicing celibacy.  Yet they called Jesus Rabbi and Master which would be most odd to have given him such a traditional title had Jesus been celibate. 

 

 

I will skip the fourth point for now.

Marriage was the norm and standard in the OT, I never tried to argue otherwise.  I have provided examles that it was not unheard of, but celibacy was not common.  At the time of Jesus, I'm sure most of his Apostles were married, we know that Peter was, for his MIL is mentioned in Scripture. 

Rabbi was simply a title given to someone who was a scholar of the Law and since He spoke as one having authority, He was considered a Rabbi.  I'm not sure how odd it would've been to call a celibate man rabbi, I did not live in that time period.  But from what I know, John the Baptist had a large following, and the fact that he was a man who lived in the wild and was celibate, didn't seem to bother anyone.  In fact it drew more people to him because they believed he was the Messiah, even Herod was curious who this man was.  So, I don't believe the Pharisees pointing out his celibacy would've had any impact on Jesus' followers.

[faith4]

 

 First is that if the understanding of dedicating one’s self to G-d in the priesthood and specific service was deliberately changed by Jesus or his apostles as no longer the historical norm – one would think that such an important change would be directly addressed by Jesus or his apostles.  But such specific address is conspicuously missing.   The other important consideration is that those that insist that Jesus was not married and that celibacy was an actual requirement or norm of priestly service and dedication to G-d among the first Christians are left with the burden to prove such a notion – it should not be those that would believe marriage necessary according to the divine and undisputed commandment to multiple and replenish to prove something outside of the norm and historical tradition of the time and place.  And conclusive proof that Jesus was celibate just is not provided anywhere.  This would not be the first time that religious Christian tradition (like the example of an earth centered solar system) was taught as divine doctrine but simply was not true or viable divine doctrine.

 

 

This is it right here, this is the imaginary stone you keep stumbling over.  The teaching of priestly celibacy is not a dogma, it is not a central and irreformable part of our faith, it is a disciplinary rule which the Latin Rite teaches.  It does not change the deposit of faith handed on to the Apostles and to the Church.  Jesus did not deliberately change the historical norm of marriage.  Jesus did not demand celibacy of anyone, so no address is conspicuously missing as you charge.  Jesus does however mention that this way of life is acceptable, to those who are called to it, it is a "gift" that is only granted to some, not all.  See Mt 19:1-12 on His discourse with the Pharisees on marriage and divorce.  Also see Mt 19:27-30.  St. Paul expounds on this idea in 1 Cor. 7.  In verse 6 Paul says about celibacy, "This I say by way of concession, howerver, not as a command" , and again in verse 35, "I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction".  The "burden of proof" is all around you, not only in the Scriptures, but also in the teachings of the early Church fathers, and Doctors of the Church, these past 2000 years.  It is found in, not only Scriptures and our tradition, but also of the Orthodox and Eastern Churches traditions as well. 

  

Put yourself in the shoes of a 1st century Jewish man, who believes in what the Apostles of Jesus are teaching.  Most of these early converts were Jewish, and were most likely married.  Paul provides guidelines in 1 Tim. for men who are acceptable to ordain as Bishops and deacons, having one wife and being able to manage his household and children in a submissive and respectful way (4-5).  In this teaching Paul does not declare that these men must have a wife and children, but that if they do have one and wish to receive ordination, they must show self-control in their personal life.  Obviously, Paul does not teach that a married man is mandatory to be a Bishop since he himself is unmarried, and very content to be so.  The book, The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Christian Cochini demonstrates how celibacy grew from the time of the Apostles and became a teaching for the Latin Rite.   

 

As for the repetitive charge of "forbidding people to marry", the Church does not forbid anyone.  No one is required to take a vow of celibacy, those who do take it, do so voluntarily.  They, themselves by their own choice, renounce marriage (Mt 19:12), no one forbids it to them.  If a Catholic does not wish to take such a vow, they are free to marry, the Church does not stop anyone from taking a husband and wife.  The Eastern Rite allows for Priests to be married (there are guidelines of course) but all their Bishops are celibate (Bishops are chosen among the priests who are celibate). 

 

And the command of God to be fruitful and multiply is a general precept for the human race, for we were made in the image and likeness of God, as God is our Creator, we are given the gift of procreation.  It is not a disputed command of God, nor has that ever been taught. 

 

Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy sacrament, it is a vocation in itself.  In fact, it is precisely this holiness which makes celibacy beautiful, for only what is good and holy in itself can be offered up to God as a sacrifice.  As fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage.  As a wife and mother, I serve God wholly by humbly and lovingly submitting to all that which entails of me as a wife and mother.  I recognize my husband as the authority of the household, and support and love him at all times.  I teach, correct and discipline my children, feed and clothe them, love and care for them.  I also care for the household by managing bills and taking care of our garden and pets.  A priest manages his "household", his parish, and by caring for his "spiritual" children.   

 

And as for your last example, which is entirely unrelated though you try to compare the two, celibacy is not dogma...I will say it again...it is not dogma.    

[Traveler]

Faith4:  Lets go back to the scripture you provided in Matt 19.  Jesus is in the coast of Judea beyond Jordan - where ever that is.  There is quite a gathering and the Pharisee are asking questions trying to find error with Jesus.  The question concerns marriage - very much along the same lines as our discussion.  Note that Jesus and I used the exact same argument concerning gender, the purpose of gender and because of gender we have obligation not just to marry but to multiply and replenish the earth.   It is important to understand that Jesus and I both referenced the creation and the covenant we have with G-d and are on point concerning the first covenant of man.  That is the bases of understanding both what is at the foundation of Jesus' teachings in Matt 19 and the main point I argued.   I believe Jesus pokes fun of the Pharisee and sarcastically ridicules their interpretation of scripture.   He teaches that it is the intent of G-d that a man and a woman be together physically as " one flesh".

 

Now I want you to carefully consider what is going on in this exchange.  This is important and critical.  The Pharisees are looking to prove that Jesus does not know what he is talking about - that Jesus is a fraud.  Why didn't the Pharisees attack Jesus directly in his teaching and ask him why he was not married?  Because the Pharisees were stupid?  I personally doubt that - they came as a group and if Jesus was not married - it would have been game over.  Many times Jesus openly accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites for not living according to their own teachings and you really think the self proclaimed scripture experts and experts in Jewish tradition and law would let such an opportunity go completely unchallenged?

 

But it is also important to note that the discussion turns.  Many think that what is being discussed is marriage - but if one looks closely they will realize that the discussion is actually deeper than just being married but is about being intimately engaged in being "one flesh" which is the essence of having children.   In verse 10 a question is raised about intimacy and Jesus is asked if it would be better to not even marry if intimacy is not in the cards. 

 

Jesus makes a caveat as a warning that not everybody is going to understand  and then he goes on to explain some extreme examples in that some men cannot be intimate (one flesh) because they were born with serious problems and physically are unable to be intimate.  He also explains that some have been altered and cannot be intimate.  Finely he states that there are times in which men will abstain from intimacy temporally because of religious obligations.  I think you made reference to LDS missionaries while serving their two year mission.  There are a number of examples in the Jewish society of that time and place that men were obligated to abstain from sexual activity for religious reasons.  I think this is exactly what Jesus is talking about.  In today's society we call intimate relationship as being "sexually active".  I am sure you realize that those unable to be "one flesh" (sexually active) are not bared from marriage because in these verses Jesus specifically allows such.  But there is an interesting aspect to all this.  We see with older couples of Biblical times that were unable to have children that is was assumed that G-d was withholding blessings for some reason.  Indeed; Psalms states that "Children are an inheritance of the L-rd" - which means that those that serve and please G-d - will inherit children.

[Traveler]

Faith4:  A note concerning Paul who once was a Pharisee.  There are debates concerning his martial status that perhaps Paul was widowed.  The only point here is that unless you have unequivocal proof that Paul was never married - it is better not to assert that he never was married.  If anyone wants to see for themselves the arguments pro and con concerning Paul's martial status - simply Google "Was Paul Married".

[faith4]

Faith4:  Lets go back to the scripture you provided in Matt 19.  Jesus is in the coast of Judea beyond Jordan - where ever that is.  There is quite a gathering and the Pharisee are asking questions trying to find error with Jesus.  The question concerns marriage - very much along the same lines as our discussion.  Note that Jesus and I used the exact same argument concerning gender, the purpose of gender and because of gender we have obligation not just to marry but to multiply and replenish the earth.   It is important to understand that Jesus and I both referenced the creation and the covenant we have with G-d and are on point concerning the first covenant of man.  That is the bases of understanding both what is at the foundation of Jesus' teachings in Matt 19 and the main point I argued.   I believe Jesus pokes fun of the Pharisee and sarcastically ridicules their interpretation of scripture.   He teaches that it is the intent of G-d that a man and a woman be together physically as " one flesh".    

 

Now I want you to carefully consider what is going on in this exchange.  This is important and critical.  The Pharisees are looking to prove that Jesus does not know what he is talking about - that Jesus is a fraud.  Why didn't the Pharisees attack Jesus directly in his teaching and ask him why he was not married?  Because the Pharisees were stupid?  I personally doubt that - they came as a group and if Jesus was not married - it would have been game over.  Many times Jesus openly accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites for not living according to their own teachings and you really think the self proclaimed scripture experts and experts in Jewish tradition and law would let such an opportunity go completely unchallenged?

 

But it is also important to note that the discussion turns.  Many think that what is being discussed is marriage - but if one looks closely they will realize that the discussion is actually deeper than just being married but is about being intimately engaged in being "one flesh" which is the essence of having children.   In verse 10 a question is raised about intimacy and Jesus is asked if it would be better to not even marry if intimacy is not in the cards. 

 

Jesus makes a caveat as a warning that not everybody is going to understand  and then he goes on to explain some extreme examples in that some men cannot be intimate (one flesh) because they were born with serious problems and physically are unable to be intimate.  He also explains that some have been altered and cannot be intimate.  Finely he states that there are times in which men will abstain from intimacy temporally because of religious obligations.  I think you made reference to LDS missionaries while serving their two year mission.  There are a number of examples in the Jewish society of that time and place that men were obligated to abstain from sexual activity for religious reasons.  I think this is exactly what Jesus is talking about.  In today's society we call intimate relationship as being "sexually active".  I am sure you realize that those unable to be "one flesh" (sexually active) are not bared from marriage because in these verses Jesus specifically allows such.  But there is an interesting aspect to all this.  We see with older couples of Biblical times that were unable to have children that is was assumed that G-d was withholding blessings for some reason.  Indeed; Psalms states that "Children are an inheritance of the L-rd" - which means that those that serve and please G-d - will inherit children.

 

Before I begin, I just want to say thank you for being such a gentleman, and allowing me to have some time to answer you to the best of my abilites with the limitation of time.  :) 

 

Your argument is a quite a stretch and is mostly speculation.  I've never said or implied that God intended for all of humanity to be celibate, that a husband and wife should not have children, that somehow our gender has little to do w/replenishing the earth.  Have you never come across the joke that a family w/several children is either Catholic or LDS?  I'm pretty sure I can say that Catholics have never forgotten their duty to procreate.  Jesus' mention of the first covenant of creation is indeed about marriage, and that divorce was never something God intended for.  Once a man and woman are joined together in a covenant, no one should try to separate them.  This is clear, I never said anything about divorce, nor is this topic about divorce. 

 

The Pharisees are indeed testing Him, they wish for Him to say something which they can use against Him, especially if they can get Him to disagree w/the Mosaic Law.  This is their main objective, not to try to point Jesus out as a hypocrite.  If Jesus wasn't married (as He most assuredly was not), everyone who followed Him would've already known this, the Pharisees wouldn't need to point this out or gang up on Him, and their silence about his celibacy is not sufficient "proof" that He was married.  Yes, celibacy was unusual for a man, but it was not unheard of.  John the Baptist was celibate and he had many, many followers.  Even the Pharisees sent priests and levites to question him to see if he was the Messiah.  They didn't seem to care that he was a wild man who lived in the desert and was celibate.  Back to Jesus.  Jesus' answer eludes them though, He tells them that divorce is unnatural, but allowed b/c of the hardness of their hearts.  Those who divorce unlawfully and remarry commit adultery, to which His disciples then comment to Him that it would be better to not marry.  Jesus does not reply in the negative to this comment though, He actually says that this is something that is granted to some people to accept.  He then goes into the verse I keep quoting.  

 

In verse 10, no questions are asked Jesus, rather, they make a comment that it would be better to not marry.  There is no mention of whether or not intimacy is "in the cards".  Marriage implies intimacy.  And again, Jesus replies that this is something that is granted to some.  Not all, some.  Again, I am not saying that everyone must abandon the command to be fruitful and multiply, this is not a sudden u-turn on this command, Jesus is not teaching us to ignore this command.  Jesus then continues to give examples for why men don't marry, His last example includes those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He then repeats Himself, that whoever can accept this (to whom this "gift" is granted), should accept it.  Nowhere does He say this means to temporarily renounce intimacy, this is His response to His disciples comment that it is better not to marry.  This is the subject He expounds on, not, "it is better to not have intimacy for a while". 

 

As for St. Paul, I don't care if people speculate if he was widowed or not.  Widowed men can become priests.  Tradition teaches us that he was not married, but regardless, he makes himself clear on his position on marriage and celibacy in his letters.  Those who wish to ignore it, are free to do so.  But of course, celibacy is not a dogma. Have I said that yet?  This is not a central part of our faith, nor does it impact the deposit of faith or the Good News. 

 

Speaking of being one in the flesh through the marital covenant, I would like to here your interpretation of Eph 5:21-32, especially verses 31 & 32, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church."   

 

God Bless :) 

[Traveler]

Before I begin, I just want to say thank you for being such a gentleman, and allowing me to have some time to answer you to the best of my abilites with the limitation of time.  :) 

 

Your argument is a quite a stretch and is mostly speculation.  I've never said or implied that God intended for all of humanity to be celibate, that a husband and wife should not have children, that somehow our gender has little to do w/replenishing the earth.  Have you never come across the joke that a family w/several children is either Catholic or LDS?  I'm pretty sure I can say that Catholics have never forgotten their duty to procreate.  Jesus' mention of the first covenant of creation is indeed about marriage, and that divorce was never something God intended for.  Once a man and woman are joined together in a covenant, no one should try to separate them.  This is clear, I never said anything about divorce, nor is this topic about divorce. 

 

The Pharisees are indeed testing Him, they wish for Him to say something which they can use against Him, especially if they can get Him to disagree w/the Mosaic Law.  This is their main objective, not to try to point Jesus out as a hypocrite.  If Jesus wasn't married (as He most assuredly was not), everyone who followed Him would've already known this, the Pharisees wouldn't need to point this out or gang up on Him, and their silence about his celibacy is not sufficient "proof" that He was married.  Yes, celibacy was unusual for a man, but it was not unheard of.  John the Baptist was celibate and he had many, many followers.  Even the Pharisees sent priests and levites to question him to see if he was the Messiah.  They didn't seem to care that he was a wild man who lived in the desert and was celibate.  Back to Jesus.  Jesus' answer eludes them though, He tells them that divorce is unnatural, but allowed b/c of the hardness of their hearts.  Those who divorce unlawfully and remarry commit adultery, to which His disciples then comment to Him that it would be better to not marry.  Jesus does not reply in the negative to this comment though, He actually says that this is something that is granted to some people to accept.  He then goes into the verse I keep quoting.  

 

In verse 10, no questions are asked Jesus, rather, they make a comment that it would be better to not marry.  There is no mention of whether or not intimacy is "in the cards".  Marriage implies intimacy.  And again, Jesus replies that this is something that is granted to some.  Not all, some.  Again, I am not saying that everyone must abandon the command to be fruitful and multiply, this is not a sudden u-turn on this command, Jesus is not teaching us to ignore this command.  Jesus then continues to give examples for why men don't marry, His last example includes those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He then repeats Himself, that whoever can accept this (to whom this "gift" is granted), should accept it.  Nowhere does He say this means to temporarily renounce intimacy, this is His response to His disciples comment that it is better not to marry.  This is the subject He expounds on, not, "it is better to not have intimacy for a while". 

 

As for St. Paul, I don't care if people speculate if he was widowed or not.  Widowed men can become priests.  Tradition teaches us that he was not married, but regardless, he makes himself clear on his position on marriage and celibacy in his letters.  Those who wish to ignore it, are free to do so.  But of course, celibacy is not a dogma. Have I said that yet?  This is not a central part of our faith, nor does it impact the deposit of faith or the Good News. 

 

Speaking of being one in the flesh through the marital covenant, I would like to here your interpretation of Eph 5:21-32, especially verses 31 & 32, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church."   

 

God Bless :) 

 

In my personal quest for truth I have come to discover that bias too often plays too great a roll.   What I mean by bias is that we begin with a premise and then find all the evidence we can to support the premise.  Bias is not necessarily a bad thing but it is very dependent on the initial premise and where that premise came from.  As a scientist I realize that bias and view heavily influences the conclusion.   This is demonstrated in politics, religion and even science.   For example for over 100 years the leading scientist, experts and educators assumed that dinosaurs were cold blooded.  This tradition caused two problems.  First it caused scientist to view the evidence through a false lens.  I call this a false lens because in order to make their conclusions consistent they had to mitigate the evidence.  The second problem is that the tradition kept scientist from rational consideration of other possibilities – specifically the possibility that dinosaurs were warm blooded. 

 

My initial premise is that the creation is the primary or first means of G-d to accomplish his intents.  The scriptures begin with the symbolic liturgy of G-d’s creation.  I do not believe this is by accident but by divine necessity.  With the understanding that worship and service are tightly coupled in man’s relationship to G-d we find in scripture that the gender of mankind and creation is part of G-d and man’s being in the image and likeness of him.  Through commandment from G-d the first service and worship of G-d is to engage him in the worshipful covenant of marriage for the express purpose to multiply and replenish the earth.  This means that sexual intimacy is not just ordained by G-d in marriage but the means by which man is commanded to love and serve G-d – in the very manner and act it is the likeness of G-d.  To multiply and replenish the earth is a divine means of teaching man about the very nature and purpose of G-d.  Sexual intimacy is not the original sin but in truth the original worship of G-d and commitment to be in his service.

 

For whatever reason known to G-d there are from time to time exceptions to his commandments by which we worship him.  For example part of the worship and service to G-d is to not kill other humans but then we see on occasion that G-d commands that as worship and service we are to kill.  We see Abraham commanded to kill his son Isaac as a service to G-d in a ritual worship sacrifice that is a type and shadow of G-d the Father offering his son as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind.  The caveat to exceptions is that such exceptions to commandments of worshipful service are individualistic and on a case by case bases.  There is no such thing as a blanket exception to worshipful service to G-d through obedience to him.  The key to understanding G-d and his commandments to man is obedience – which requires discipline.  The other great key to worship and service to G-d is that we do not choose how we worship and serve him.  If we so choose then we are worshiping and serving our own desires and not G-d.  We must engage our worship and service to him by his commandment and direction.

 

For purposes known to G-d there are exceptions to his commandment to worship him in the service to multiply and replenish the earth.  Jesus outlines part of those exceptions in Matt 19.   Hopefully we can understand that the discipline of worship often requires obedience to prepare for worship that G-d requires.  Samuel explains this to Saul that obedience in greater than the sacrifice of animals.  Not that animal sacrifice was not part of worship but that we do not choose our worship and service to G-d but rather we submit ourselves to his service by discipline to obey him.

 

One last but perhaps the most important point.  G-d is very powerful and he is not limited as man is limited.  He can accomplish one thing without diminishing what is necessary to accomplish another thing.  Thus those that worship and serve him are also capable of doing all things that G-d commands.  The excuse that worship and service to G-d at the highest or any level should require life time celibacy as a prime or common requirement is heresy and contrary to the nature and purposes of G-d and an indicator of apostasy of his doctrine, his priesthood, his covenants and his Church.

 

In regards to you question in Ephesians 5:21-32, especially verses 31 & 32, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church."   

 

This I believe this to be a reference of worship of G-d as I have stated above.  That the covenant of marriage and family – which is the sexual intimacy to create and together the raising of children to worship G-d in the marriage covenant is according to the example of Christ for our power to create life (flesh) has he created the flesh or life of all mankind.  Thus through marriage we become one flesh that is the flesh of the creation of the eternal and living G-d (the meaning of the living G-d or the G-d of life which is the living flesh).