/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Not a Catholic (Orthodox), but this will be for his own good. And at least he isn't a queer. Just a regular guy looking for a wife (albeit, a creepy one)…. and made a celibacy commitment he was never meant for.

>>763457

That's what happens when a sad man with a broken heart gets into priesthood.

I've thought about that as well but I already figure out what would happen.

> knew that I loved him and that even if we couldn't marry, there were other ways

What other ways? Cuddling with reading the Bible or praying?

>>763457

A vow of celibacy is still a vow made before God. Just throwing it away for a wife is like divorcing a wife for the younger model.

>>763509

I think the anon meant that the guy had no vocation for priest.

>>763605

if marriage was a mandate, then Jesus Christ sinned by violating it, and the same with St. Paul for recommending celibacy

>>763612

Jesus and Paul weren't pastors

>>763615

Jesus is Christ, and St. Paul was an apostle. If you have anything against celibacy, take it up against St. Paul and the Holy Spirit! But you wouldn't dare, so you take your complaint and lay it against the Church. It's cowardly.

>>763617

I'm not opposed to celibacy. I just read the Bible and it's terms for the pastorate.

>>763619

If you read the Bible you must acknowledge:

1. Jesus Christ was celibate, implying there is nothing immoral about celibacy.

2. Christ established His Church, and gave Her the authority to loose and bind teachings on Heaven and Earth.

3. St. Paul not only recommends celibacy, but claims it is better for Men of God to be celibate.

Put all this together, and the Church has more than enough scriptural authority to institute vows of celibacy for Her Priests.

If She had mandated the laity to celibacy, than perhaps your complaint may have weight. If you're Orthodox, aren't Bishops supposed to take a vow of celibacy?

>>763612

Never said it was a "sin".

<someones defensive

>>763615

<bingo

>>763619

<chicken dinner.

>>763617

<And how would you know if I did or did not?

<would you even believe me?

>obviously No, you wouldnt.

<the fault lies with your "church" because it mandates beyond what is biblical and goes further by demanding something God himself admonished and it wasnt the refusal to have sex

>no oaths brainlet

>>763623

>1

<correct

>2

<so close, but incorrect.

>3

<this is Paul's personnel opinion, your own magically superior Mr.Pebble had a wife and children

<again, God in the flesh said No. So wrong again. No oaths.

>A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

<weird.

>>763634

>Never said it was a "sin".

Its assumed that breaking the commandments of God is sinful because what else would it be.

><someones defensive

You?

Anyways

>Personal Opinion

It got in the bible so clearly, in the very least, his opinion must be worth a lot.

Again

>1 Corinthians 7:7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

If he was a member of the clergy how was he allowed to say this? He would have to be the husband of one wife' after all.

>>763634

>no oaths brainlet

no oaths? you seem to misunderstand what Scripture meant by the term, if we were to be under no "oaths", then we would not be bound by any commandment/

>so close, but incorrect.

What? Did Christ lie?

>this is Paul's personnel opinion

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, or are you a muslim?

>A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

Despite your claim that Christ lied, Scripture itself affirms that the Church has the right to loose and bind on Heaven and Earth. Rather than leaving aside the "personal opinion" of St. Paul as you put it, the Church saw fit to raise the standards St. Paul himself thought good.

>>763649

Don't bother arguing with Protestants. They believe Christ's life was meaningless, except the crucifixion. Either explicitly or implicitly, that's the only thing he did or taught that ever matters in their minds. I've been criticizing their individualist mentality in other ways in other threads lately, and that's how they view salvation as well. As just some thing for "me" to ultimately be saved in this one event and declared righteous for all eternity, never challenged again. Christ and the Glory of God is just reduced to some inane "one and done" deal through the cross alone. Sola Fide. It's ultimately a selfish perspective of salvation. The kind that wants eternal life, and the treasures of heaven, and then just leaves the party, never calling up Christ again. "Thanks for the meal, bro. I gotta go." Me, me, me. They can't fathom thinking about anything else, any other commandments, any other vocations Christ may (and DID) call us all to. And when other Christians (namely Orthodox or Catholics) do this, they warp it into some kind of folly.. using retarded phrases like "works salvation". Anything more than the cross is either wrongheaded or an outright sin, because we're all totally depraved anyhow, and somehow actually following Christ is bizarrely reinterpreted as the opposite of what he wants.