/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

because celibacy isn't that difficult a requirement and it's said to be a better way than marriage… there's a thing called standards for your leaders

>>534706

>because celibacy isn't that difficult a requirement and it's said to be a better way than marriage…

This WHOLE post is just your opinion. Someone give me some Bible opinions

The argument shouldn't even be about celibacy but the legitimacy of marriage being barred from Holy Orders. Many of the disciples and priests that came after the founding of the church were married. I feel like it's just the Church LARPing over Monks.

Presbyters and deacons can be married before their ordination in Eastern Catholicism and, of course, Eastern Orthodoxy.

Bishops must always be celibate because they're chosen from monks, to limit the amount of power-hungry assholes who want to be bishops for their own gains rather than for the sake of the Church, unlike what used to happen when Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire.

Latin Catholics enforced clerical celibacy so that the job would be easier and more fulfilling for clergy, and it stuck. Nowadays it's a problem because no one is really interested in being a priest anymore if that must mean forced celibacy. But it's a long and important Catholic tradition so they can't just do away with it overnight either. I think the real negative consequence is that, because there's less and less priests, the Vatican just prefers to shuffle them around than to kick them out if they misbehave, and this propagates the "lol priests are pedophiles XD" meme.

>>534708

Bishops are chosen from monks (and usually experienced ones) because, well, take a look at what happens to Christianity when bishops are not exclusively chosen from peple who have vowed to dedicate their lives to prayer and to service of the Church, and who have done so for a certain amount of time. Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire in 313. By 325, all of the Church was a complete doctrinal mess, and the majority of bishops were Arians. The Council of Nicaea was convoked not just to crush Arianism and put some order, but also to put Church-wide restrictions on what the clergy can and cannot do, and even then it wasn't really recognized as authoritative by the whole Church until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Bishops are chosen from among monks not because of onanism over monasticism and celibacy, but because the bishops have the most important job in the Church, with the worst repercussions if they mess up.

>>534723

>enforced clerical celibacy so that the job would be easier and more fulfilling for clergy,

What proof?

>Bishops are chosen from among monks not because of onanism over monasticism and celibacy, but because the bishops have the most important job in the Church, with the worst repercussions if they mess up.

Do you think removing the celibacy requirement would be beneficial int he current century? Life and western culture just isn't like how it used to be. If you dont do anything to combat the deficiency in priests it'll just get worse. It isn't even a law from Christ , it's a tradition.

>>534732

You ever been outside you house and to Church and around priests? If so, do you have a brain. Sometimes I find it hard to believe non-latin priests who are married can do their job very well. It is not only not an easy job, but it is also heavily time consuming. Also grow up and embrace chastity and then celibacy will be way easier to understand. You are like little babby, crying about how hard your part time job at a petshop is. Pray more.

>>534732

The reason for bishops to be chosen among monks remains completely valid, so I don't see any reason it should be lifted.

>What proof?

Well, nevermind. I learned somewhere that clerical celibacy became the practice of the Latin Church because priests traveled often in the Middle-Ages and so their family made it difficult for them to fulfill their job properly, but apparently there's no real consensus on when exactly and why the Latin Church made clerical celibacy mandatory.

Either way, there's nothing wrong with the practice as in basically everywhere but in the Latin Church. Priests and deacons can get married before their ordination.

Because Priests are supposed to be representatives of Jesus Christ.

If a vow of celibacy offends you, does the celibacy of our sinless Lord offend you? To emulate Christ is the highest call, and through this practice is why the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

Don't like it? Join any of the other 10,000 denominations. You can be like pastor anderson if you like.

>>534706

>because celibacy isn't that difficult a requirement

Depends on the person. Some people are absolutely not called to celibacy (read 1 Cor 7)

>it's said to be a better way than marriage

Not better, just different. Don't underestimate the vocation of parenthood; our first commission was to be fruitful and multiply. Nine times out of ten all the wise, celibate elders in the world are no match for good, faithful parents in regards to the direct impact they have on someone's spiritual life.

>>534737

There are advantages and disadvantages to clerical celibacy. As you say, celibate priests are able to devote more time to studying and caring for their parishioners. They can also offer an outsider's perspective on marriage which can be useful. However, married priests always have a God-pleasing outlet for their sexuality and are able to add direct, personal experience in family/married life to their resume, so to speak. So why not have both as each individual is called? The Bible discusses the calls to celibacy and the Office of the Ministry separately, and directly implies that bishops can be married (1 Tim 3:2) so there's no good reason to require one for the other. And quite unfortunately, if one who is fit for the Office of the Ministry accepts a celibacy to which he is not fit, his parish is bound for scandal.

As our Lord said, let he who is able to receive the gift of celibacy receive it (Matt 19:12). And as Saint Paul said, let he who is burning with passion have his own wife. These apply to clergy as much as laity.

It's a carryover from the Middle Ages, when the Roman Catholics were looking to prevent clerical nepotism, right?

>>534772

>when the Roman Catholics were looking to *assimilate assets from dead clergy without competition from their children

Keep in mind, during the time period just prior to the Reformation, the Latins held over 1/3 of the landmass in Western Europe.

>>534703

Traditions of men without regard to God.

>>534783

So Paul followed tradition of men, because he refused to have a wife?

>>534708

>This WHOLE post is just your opinion

>Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am.

>>534793

From the Church History by Eusebius.

>CHAPTER 30. The Apostles that were married

>"Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the abovementioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.

>"Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Oh thou, remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place. "

>>534818

It's very simple. If you find fault with celibacy, then you find fault with Christ whom was celibate.

How do you find emulation "going only so far"? Countless people have been martyred for the Church, is that going too far?

>>534766

You sound like a very level headed person for a Lutheran.

>>534820

>It's very simple. If you find fault with celibacy, then you find fault with Christ whom was celibate.

Get outta here with that fault junk. Stop manipulating my posts , i have not mentioned martyrs nor chirst, only you bring this up.

Why deny marriage when, as what's been said countless times in this dumb thread, many disciples and priests in the past have been married happy men. As this anon points out, >>534766

Celibacy is not for all men nor is it forced up all men and those who come to Holy Order.

You also completely ignored my argument where I say having faith and trust in Him is above man trying their best to LARP as Jesus.

>>534823

>Get outta here with that fault junk. Stop manipulating my posts , i have not mentioned martyrs nor chirst, only you bring this up.

?

I'm following your logic to its logical conclusion. If celibacy is "wrong" then Christ who is perfect is wrong. Additionally, if being celibate is wrong, then why is not martyrdom itself not wrong?

>Why deny marriage when, as what's been said countless times in this dumb thread

Why do people choose to follow Christ, who said to give up all your material desires; give it to the poor, and follow Him?

>Celibacy is not for all men nor is it forced up all men and those who come to Holy Order.

If you choose to follow Christ with caveats, then you do not fully follow Christ. The RCC has decided you are unfit to be a priest of Christ's Church.

>You also completely ignored my argument where I say having faith and trust in Him is above man trying their best to LARP as Jesus.

Oh? So those who choose to give up all and follow Jesus are at fault?

>>534820

>It's very simple. If you find fault with celibacy, then you find fault with Christ whom was celibate.

<unless you mandate celibacy for X class of people you do not value celibacy.

You must not value marriage because you don't mandate your priests to be married. Or you could recognize the biblical view of celibacy as a holy calling to which individuals respond irrespective of other vocations. Again, there is not problem with clerical celibacy or celibacy in general, but there are many problems with mandated celibacy of any kind, clerical or otherwise.

>>534825

>Why do people choose to follow Christ, who said to give up all your material desires; give it to the poor, and follow Him?

>If you choose to follow Christ with caveats, then you do not fully follow Christ.

>Oh? So those who choose to give up all and follow Jesus are at fault?

You seem to have an implied premise that celibacy is required to follow Christ to the fullest extent, because otherwise you will be "distracted" by your spouse. Let's see where that kind of thinking leads.

Generalizing a bit, if having relationships with other people distracts you from God, to follow Christ to the fullest extent possible, you must cut off all relations with other people and be a hermit. And if you must follow God to the fullest extent possible in order to be a pastor, then you must be a hermit pastor cut of from all other people. A hermit pastor cut off from all other people cannot engage in any pastoral care for his parish. And someone who does not engage in pastoral care for a parish is not a pastor. Thus, in your view, pastors cannot be pastors. You see how quickly your ideas reach a contradiction? Requiring pastors to be as such is an axiomatic contradiction since they are by definition involved in the concerns of at least their parishioners.

Your implied premise is, however, completely unfounded in scripture and the experience of the Church. God commands us to marry, be fruitful, and multiply, so doing so cannot be following him "with caveats" or some such hokum. You present a false dichotomy as loving our fellow man, be it your wife, parishioner, or any random person is in fact an act of loving God as 1 John 4 tells us. Hermit, celibate, pastor, husband/father, are all different but equally valuable and necessary callings.

>>534821

>You sound like a very level headed person for a Lutheran.

>for a Lutheran.

Kek, what is that supposed to mean?

>>534828

>Why can't we take Holy Orders and be married?

Because they are mutually exclusive sacraments. One is following the course of Man, the other is following the course of Christ, and this is because your bride is not a woman, but the Christ's bride, the Holy Catholic Church.

>I DIDNT SAY CELIBACY WAS WRONG , WHERE DID I WRITE "CELIBACY IS WRONG".

You may as well, you call it "LARPING" and are essentially saying it's a fruitless imitation of Christ. You can get married and be a good Catholic, but you cannot be married to the Church and give sacraments. Very simple, and even in this era, very necessary.

>>534831

>One is following the course of Man, the other is following the course of Christ

False dichotomy friend, reread 1 John 4.

>You must not value marriage because you don't mandate your priests to be married. Or you could recognize the biblical view of celibacy as a holy calling to which individuals respond irrespective of other vocations. Again, there is not problem with clerical celibacy or celibacy in general, but there are many problems with mandated celibacy of any kind, clerical or otherwise.

there is no issue except your own psychological issues with it. not every man can bear the responsibility of marriage.

once again, they are mutually exclusive sacraments. most catholic men are not called towards the priesthood.

>to follow Christ to the fullest extent possible, you must cut off all relations with other people and be a hermit.

Wrong, you'd end up in a monastery and be trained to preach…hmm…how come nobody has done this yet….wait a sec…

>if you must follow God to the fullest extent possible in order to be a pastor, then you must be a hermit pastor cut of from all other people

neither, you'd be a Church Father

>Thus, in your view, pastors cannot be pastors.

"pastors" outside the RCC are illegitimate, I agree.

>You see how quickly your ideas reach a contradiction?

wut

>>534832

>Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false

?

>>534831

>Because they are mutually exclusive sacraments

>once again, they are mutually exclusive sacraments

I really want to know why 1 Tim 3:2 and every Christian for the first 1100 years after Christ didn't view marriage and holy orders as mutually exclusive. Including the "first Pope", who was married himself.

>Wrong, you'd end up in a monastery and be trained to preach…hmm…how come nobody has done this yet….wait a sec…

Again I have no problem with celibates or hermits, but requiring pastors to be as such is unbiblical and founded in contradictory logic.

>neither, you'd be a Church Father

Did you even read that sentence? I don't think you understand what I wrote.

>"pastors" outside the RCC are illegitimate, I agree.

>wut

Try following the logic again. I don't think you got it. For all I care you can view pastors as only being priests assigned to a parish and validly ordained by a bishop in communion with the Pope and the argument still shows the absurdity of your position. Let me try breaking it down again slightly differently. You believe:

(i) Being married distracts one from God

(ii) One cannot be distracted from God and be a pastor

Generalizing (i), you get:

(iii) Being entangled in personal relationships with other people distracts you from God

However, the very nature of the pastoral calling is being entangled in personal relationships with your parishioners, thus (ii) and (iii) yield a contradiction.

>>534833

>?

Verse 7 on.

>One is following the course of Man, the other is following the course of Christ

Real talk. This sentence sounds so riddled with holes but I'm not educated enough on the Bible to tackle it face to face. What are good arguments against this?

>>534833

>once again, they are mutually exclusive sacraments

How? How??? Let's say I take Eucharist and be married, is this mutually exclusive? What are you saying.

You're implying that it's tottally impossible to be both a priest and in wedlock even though it's been proven with fact that marriage for those in the Holy Order's was completely fine. Just admit that it's just a man made tradition and has nothing to do with the origins of the Church. What your saying don't hold up at all

>>534947

Shut up

>>534947

Shut up and stop spouting illogical nonsense

>>534972

>>534973

>I can't control myself: the thread

>>534921

>How? How??? Let's say I take Eucharist and be married

Are you pretending to be silly? The RCC has decided that they are mutually exclusive. We are not Protestants who are sola scriptura.

>You're implying that it's tottally impossible to be both a priest and in wedlock even though it's been proven with fact that marriage for those in the Holy Order's was completely fine.

Because the Church has decided the priests of Christ's should strive to be more like Christ, and decided so. If you reject the Church's teachings on this, then you reject the entire idea of a magisterium.

I'm not sure why we are continuing this discussion, because you are obviously not an adherent of the Roman Catholic Church.

>I really want to know why 1 Tim 3:2 and every Christian for the first 1100 years after Christ didn't view marriage and holy orders as mutually exclusive. Including the "first Pope", who was married himself.

magisterium, we do not believe in sola scriptura/sola fide, etc etc

>Did you even read that sentence? I don't think you understand what I wrote.

You're stealing my line here, Christ did not preach the gospel as a loner hermit, he taught a closed community, otherwise known as the apostles, and then charged them to go around the world and preach the good news. AKA, this is what monasticism is supposed to allow the average man to emulate.

I'm not sure what about the Catholic priest-hood or Catholic monastic orders make you think "loner hermits".

>(ii) One cannot be distracted from God and be a pastor

I do not acknowledge any "priesthood" outside of the Catholic Church.

>>535017

>magisterium

That's not a reason; it's an efficient cause. The magesterium ostensibly has to have reasons for what it does. It doesn't just act arbitrarily. My point is that those reasons are poor.

You also seem to be under the impression that clerical celibacy is dogma in the Roman Catholic Church (by implying that someone who disagrees with its practice cannot be Roman Catholic). But it's not; it's simply canon law in the Latin rite. You have to submit to it as a Roman Catholic (in the Latin rite) but it's not binding on your conscience to believe in.

>we do not believe in sola scriptura/sola fide, etc etc

Irrelevant, and anyway I am indeed aware that Roman Catholics are not Protestant.

>I'm not sure what about the Catholic priest-hood or Catholic monastic orders make you think "loner hermits".

It doesn't make me think "loner hermits"; that sentence was simply part of my hypothetical argument which you still seem to have failed to understand.

>I do not acknowledge any "priesthood" outside of the Catholic Church.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or just not actually reading my posts? I am aware of Roman Catholic dogma on the priesthood, and I addressed this concern as irrelevant in my post:

<For all I care you can view pastors as only being priests assigned to a parish and validly ordained by a bishop in communion with the Pope and the argument still shows the absurdity of your position.

>>535016

>Because the Church has decided the priests of Christ's should strive to be more like Christ

*priests of Christ ordained in the Latin Rite after the 12th century

This is still just a rehashing of a false dichotomy that being concerned with familial life is to be distracted from God. In fact, married life, the relationship between husband and wife, is an icon exactly of the relationship between Christ and the Church. To love your wife is to be Christ-like. Read Eph 5:22-33

>>535016

> If you reject the Church's teachings on this, then you reject the entire idea of a magisterium.

Which can be changed as it's just tradition.

>I'm not sure why we are continuing this discussion, because you are obviously not an adherent of the Roman Catholic Church.

>I don't want to argue with you because i shouldn't have too, hurrrr

>we do not believe in sola scriptura/sola fide

Which I agree with, but doens't mean an old rule can't be adapted because, "muh tradition"

>>535040

>doens't mean an old rule can't be adapted because, "muh tradition"

tradition is one of the three pillars of the church, alongside scripture and the magisterium.

if you're not on board, you're not on board with how the RCC does things for many, many centuries

>>535035

your argument all comes down to denominational doctrinal disagreements, and semantics. I am a Catholic arguing in the context of the Catholic church, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

>>534916

For one, the Catholic Church has always condemned this train of thought. There were married Catholic priests in the beginning, and still are today.

>>534916

The Bible talks about married priests in the Apostolic times. The view that a priest cannot per se be married is considered heretical in the Catholic Church.

>>535133

>your argument all comes down to denominational doctrinal disagreements, and semantics.

You can continue to assert that, but it's still not true. Still can't understand my arguments, or have you just not bothered to try?

>I am a Catholic arguing in the context of the Catholic church, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

I am a non-Catholic but everything I've said works from within the context of the Catholic Church. You don't even seem to understand exactly what your church has to say on the subject though so I guess it's not too surprising that you don't get this. Go ahead and continue to a priori dismiss me because of my flag, but that's not really intellectually honest nor a good way to grow in knowledge of your faith.

>>535199

Reassuring.

>>535133

>Having a minor argument with a tradition means Im "not on board"

How can you even attempt to say such a thing? I'm kind of troubled tbh. You're the strangest Catholic' I've ever come across on this board.

> I am a Catholic arguing in the context of the Catholic church, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Everything that Anon is saying is in relation to the Catholic church, wheather he beloning or not. Can you not debate his points? Are you shunning him because he's Lutheran? You decline to partake in discourse over something so trivial and in doing so, diminish a chance to learn and discuss your faith.

I'm so disappointed in you.

>>535272

He argues exclusively in the context of sola fide and sola scriptura, I do not. I'm not exactly sure what you expect of me to really debate with him.

>How can you even attempt to say such a thing? I'm kind of troubled tbh

Tradition is one of the pillars of Catholicism alongside both Scripture and the Magisterium. To reduce it to a "muh etc" shows that you do not understand the concept of the "apostolic succession" or why it even matters. It's that the Church alone understands, and undertakes to preserve Scripture and teachings the way the apostles did, because our bishopric continues the line of inheritance and teachings from Christ's apostles. Get it?

Moreover, it extends unto the Church fathers who came after as well, the saints and councils, and etc in the over 2000 years of existence. It's why we take the call to celibacy seriously rather than just let it break down so incels can become priests that try to hook with parishioners. We have enough issues with pedophiles, ok?

>>535199

>married Catholic priests in the beginning, and still are today.

…married Catholic priests. where?

Do you mean this?

>Exceptions are admitted and there are over 200 married Catholic priests who converted from the Anglican Communion and Protestant faiths. In most Orthodox traditions and in some Eastern Catholic Churches men who are already married may be ordained priests, but priests may not marry after ordination.

>The view that a priest cannot per se be married is considered heretical in the Catholic Church

???

"If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."

>>535264

I'm done with the argument. If your argument works "in the context of the Catholic Church" then write up a refutation so we can all get married and become priests. We can become like pastors and bang widows :))

>that clerical celibacy is dogma in the Roman Catholic Church (by implying that someone who disagrees with its practice cannot be Roman Catholic). But it's not; it's simply canon law in the Latin rite. You have to submit to it as a Roman Catholic (in the Latin rite) but it's not binding on your conscience to believe in

It's besides the point.

>was simply part of my hypothetical argument which you still seem to have failed to understand.

Your hypothetical argument was completely pointless, and my own point was that monasticism and the vow of chastity demanded of priests was created to emulate Christ. The authentic Church strives to become closer to Christ, yours does not.

There's nothing to argue. You've gone astride the main point about the benefits of the practice into a bunch of irrelevant bologna.

OP, you either argue in bad faith or are…well, arguing in bad faith. I'm not sure how many times I need to explain how the Church takes tradition and the magisterium as concurrent sources of doctrine.

>>534703

This is one of the 2 Big Issues that Catholic Church has me confused and with some reproval on my part, despite me being a great admirer of their 2000 year old institution.