The Ending Of A Catholic Tradition??

The Roman catholic church, and to a large extent the Orthodox and Coptic churches believe that to be a true servant of Christ you must "accept it" and be celibate.


Umm...this does not jive with facts that I have .

I was raised in one the the largest Greek Orthodox dioceses in the world outside of Athens and have close connections to Serbian Orthodox clerics to this day.

For over 1000 years , priestly celibacy has been an unsettled issue between Rome and the Orthodox world.

Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is very explicate on the importance of this issue:


Very recently, there are disturbing signs of a new effort in Rome itself to claim that sacerdotal celibacy is “an apostolic tradition,” and to suggest that the married priests of the Eastern Churches are not fully canonical. This seems to have begun with the book of Christian Cochini, Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal and to have continued with special reference to the Eastern Churches in a tendentious book of Roman Cholij.

The latter book carries a ringing endorsement from Alfons Cardinal Stickler, Librarian and Archivist of the Holy Roman Church. From such one-sided works, the attempt to present sacerdotal celibacy as an apostolic tradition then began to appear in Vatican documents, such as Pope John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis of 25 March 1992 and the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests issued January 1993 by the Vatican Congregation of the Clergy, which actually asserts that “the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful.”

If this attempt succeeds – and may God not permit it – it would have the gravest consequence for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.
 
More verifiable evidence that
to a large extent the Orthodox and Coptic churches believe that to be a true servant of Christ you must "accept it" and be celibate.
is an inaccurate statement, especially in the United States:

About 91 percent (575 of 630) of active Greek Orthodox priests in the United States are married, and it is "very rare" for Greek Orthodox clerics to resign, he said.

The whole article is an education, actually: anyone sincerely interested in this can read it here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=2099.0;wap2
 
And now a word from Russian Orthodoxy:

The Orthodox Church has always allowed married priests and deacons, provided the marriage takes place before ordination. In general, parish priests are to be married as they live in normal society (that is, "in the world" and not a monastery) where Orthodoxy sees marriage as the normative state.

Unmarried priests usually live in monasteries since it is there that the unmarried state is the norm, although it sometimes happens that an unmarried priest is assigned to a parish. Widowed priests and deacons may not remarry, and it is common for such a member of the clergy to retire to a monastery .
http://www.kurskroot.com/orthodox_priests.html
 
And now a word from Paul.
1Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Tim 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Tim 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Tim 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Tim 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Why is the eating of beef or lamb discouraged and frowned on for certain days of the year/week?

Christians need to take more than just a casual glance at dogma.
 
Good points, Calvin.

I think in this case, "later times", can mean anytime after the time Paul wrote the letter.
 

Glomung

Account Closed
What you are reading and what I am intending to get across are very different.

I made no slur against Christians, Catholic or otherwise.
What I stated is the flat unvarnished truth. Most of what people spend their days doing is
of no value whatsoever to God. More than a few Protestants ministers have stated that they
would be immensely surprised if more than 15 to 20% of the people sitting in their pews every
Sunday morning were actual Christians.
When the average person gets up, washes, eats, goes to work, eats, shops, goes home, watches TV,
goes to sleep... where was God in all this?
We are to pray for all, feed the poor, comfort the sick, help the needy, teach, evangelize.
How many Christians of any variety actually do that?
From where I sit, it is practically impossible to tell the Christians from the heathens without asking
 
I am not, nor ever have been, nor ever will be an adherent to the roman church. That said, I am more than a little disgusted that those four priests have waited around 30 years or so to raise accusations of impropriety against that cardinal. I am of course basing this on the media reports that I read and not first hand knowledge.
Taking things at face value, I wonder just how damaging this alleged misconduct really was, and how much it might be seizing an opportunity to settle old...very old grudges.
I really feel for the guy no matter what the real truth is.


You know calvin.......I have been in the ministry business a long time and what you are saying has always been a problem.

When talking with someone, and hearing their concerns with another person, we all try and lead that person to forgive and to FORGET. They say they will, and that they have. BUT when something important comes up, such as a position in the church, or a promotion etc...........then out comes the very thing that they said was forgotten.

Imagine that. It was only forgotten until it could be used as a "trump card" to get even.

I am sad to say it, but I have seen it over and over again and the RCC is no more immune from this kind of behavior than is any other organization, or even the church down the street from where you live.
 
And now a word from Paul.
1Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Tim 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Tim 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Tim 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Tim 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Why is the eating of beef or lamb discouraged and frowned on for certain days of the year/week?

Christians need to take more than just a casual glance at dogma.

Agreed calvin!

Do you wonder where the RCC demand of priests being celibrate originated since it is opposite of the Bible's requirements.

1 Tim. 3:2
"A bishop then must be blamesless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavioe, given to hospitality apt to teach".

Now that can and is sliced and diced to fit what we want it to say, clearly the Bible says that a bishop/pastor MUST be a married man.
 
What you are reading and what I am intending to get across are very different.

I made no slur against Christians, Catholic or otherwise.
What I stated is the flat unvarnished truth. Most of what people spend their days doing is
of no value whatsoever to God. More than a few Protestants ministers have stated that they
would be immensely surprised if more than 15 to 20% of the people sitting in their pews every
Sunday morning were actual Christians.
When the average person gets up, washes, eats, goes to work, eats, shops, goes home, watches TV,
goes to sleep... where was God in all this?
We are to pray for all, feed the poor, comfort the sick, help the needy, teach, evangelize.
How many Christians of any variety actually do that?
From where I sit, it is practically impossible to tell the Christians from the heathens without asking

Dr. Billy Graham wrote many years ago in one of his books which I can not recall its title that.........................
"I believe that only 25% of church member are actually saved Christians".

That % may be a little high IMO.
 
Good points, Calvin.

I think in this case, "later times", can mean anytime after the time Paul wrote the letter.

I tend to agree with Rusty on this. After looking the phrase up in the Greek "In the latter days" where it tells us the meaning is literally (which is why I am a Literlist) "a little bit later".

It is not the same Greek phrase used in 1 Tim. 3:1 and translated as "In the last days" where the Spirit is definately referring to the last days of this age of grace, the time right before the Rapture.
 
I think you may want to say something about the inaccuracy of your claims about Orthodox clerics, Glo, considering my ample references.

As for service to God: I wonder if any surveys are done on on priests and monks and nuns as to how much of what they do is actual "service" to God. The focus on my thread here is on the clergy, not on the laity.
 
I tend to be highly skeptical about measurements of fallible men on the "spirituality" of fellow Christians.

Only God sees the heart; pollsters do not. Nor does Billy Graham.
 
IMO....God does not need "servicing"....He wants His people to help others. That's the only service Christ showed while on earth.
He accepts the "widow's mite" of any Christian's service to humanity, whatever prayers, however much kindness or expresses of true love one has time to give.

Multi-tiered and wealthy church organizations mean nothing extra to Him than the dollar given in pity to the homeless by the moved office worker. He sees "much in little".
 

Glomung

Account Closed
Nothing in the link you provided was contrary to anything I had written.
I do not think that you comprehend what I have said.
 
Nothing in the link you provided was contrary to anything I had written.
I do not think that you comprehend what I have said.
Or you need to make yourself clearer.

I gave several links....which pointed out that Orthodox priests are married.....Did you not say they were as RCC priest, celibate?
 

Glomung

Account Closed
from Barnes Bible commentary
on married bishops

A bishop - A minister of religion, according to the foregoing remarks, who has the charge or oversight of any Christian church. The reference here is doubtless to one who had the government of the church entrusted to him 1 Timothy 3:4-5, and who was also a preacher of the gospel.
Must be blameless - This is a different word (ἀνεπίλημπτον anepilēmpton) from that rendered "blameless" in Luke 1:6; Philippians 2:15; Philippians 3:6 (ἄμεμπτος amemptos); compare however, Luke 1:6 note; Philippians 3:6note. The word here used does not mean that, as a necessary qualification for office, a bishop should be "perfect;" but that he should be a man against whom no charge of immorality, or of holding false doctrine, is alleged. His conduct should be irreprehensible or irreproachable. Undoubtedly it means that if "any" charge could be brought against him implying moral obliquity, he is not fit for the office. He should be a man of irreproachable character for truth, honesty, chastity, and general uprightness.
The husband of one wife - This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop "should be" a married man, as Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century, supposed, however desirable in general it may be that a minister of the gospel should be married. But, while this interpretation is manifestly to be excluded as false, there has been much difference of opinion on the question whether the passage means that a minister should not have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first. On this question, the notes of Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Macknight, may be consulted. That the former is the correct opinion, seems to me to be evident from the following considerations:
(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should "have but one wife" would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.
 
The Roman catholic church, and to a large extent the Orthodox and Coptic churches believe that to be a true servant of Christ you must "accept it" and be celibate.
And I showed that only monks and bishops were celibate, not parish priests, which you pointed out earlier but seemed to ignore here.

Simple: In the vital church+laity community, the parish church, the vast majority of orthodox priests are married with children. In America perhaps 90%.

The opposite is true in the RCC.
 
Top