1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why must the pope be unmarried? What right do we have to add anything to God's Will?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Pilgrim of this Reality, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Terry,

    Celibacy was not imposed on the Roman Catholic clergy until the twelfth century.
     
  2. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    17,409
    Ratings:
    +4,508
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    Thank for that.

    At least the book I read nor my memory are totally faulty.

    I would not mind a PM giving the run up to the change and what brought it about.

    Thanks Terry
    ________________________________
    Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land
     
  3. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    My memory might not be up to the task, but I do believe the decision came about because of personal property rights of the Priests.

    In the era of the feudal system, the priesthood became elevated to an "upper class"... with wealthy land possesions, the priests would leave these lands to their families.... for the most part "stealing" Church land and donations.... priests and bishops became obsessed with amassing wealth to protect their families and their personal interests that it was affecting the Church in a very negative way. With the advent of the monastic life (I believe it started in Ireland) the Church moved towards a more spiritual priesthood based upon the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience... when Rome saw this was working both for the betterment of the faith and it was giving them more money.. they imposed celibacy as a rule for the Roman rite.

    It a nutshell, that's how I remember reading it... I may be wrong.
    Scott
     
  4. Pilgrim of this Reality

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    81
    Ratings:
    +14
    Hmmmm caused quite a stir.

    To victor:
    1st point, Jeremiah was forbidden by God not men
    2nd, What Moses asked the Israelites was a soon to be common practice before a religious event,
    3rd point: Paul specifically states that it was his opinion and view point that celibacy is better than marriage, it was not a direct command. 1 Corinthians 7:6
    4th point: That is true, it was a choice, not something forced upon them for wanting to serve.

    Scott:

    I was mainly just asking a question about the papacy and another question about just where people get the authority to add and remove what they wish to/from scripture. In my view, tradition is nothing more than opinion being dictated to the flock. Sorry that my view is a bit harsh, but there are many contradictions to what the NT says in many different belief systems. Such begs the question, who is wrong? Many people say no one can be wrong, but reading the NT certainly tells a person that the apostles thought divisions wrong along with many of the religious ideas the early Church was having.

    I learned my beliefs by studying the OT and the NT for myself over time and finding a congregation that followed what the NT said as closely as possible without adding to what it says. In other words, no religious titles, and no central governing body. The congregation is just a group of worshipping Christians and not an "entity" of this world. The Church is purely spiritual.

    Again, I apologize if i offended your conscience or anyone elses.
     
  5. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    While I respect your right to "ask a question"... this is a leading question... you are of the opinon that the Papacy "adds and remove"(s) from Scripture and that is contrary to reality.
    It's not that it's a bit "harsh"... it's that it's you don't understand that the Bible ITSELF is a product of Church tradition. Just because YOU believe there to be contradictions by no means "proves" that there are.
    Again... when you read the NT without any understanding of the reality of history, many Protestants come up with this view. We just find it ironic that people like yourself read the NT and come up with this idea, but ignore that the Canon of Scripture that you obviously view as authorative was compiled by the same Church you view as "wrong".
    You read the Bible that was compiled by the Catholic Church and read it with another group of people 1500 years after our Church was founded and think YOU'VE got it right? Again, we find that ironic... and a bit sad.
    ... and this is a concept that was foreign to the nascent church... history will show you that this view is bogus... just read a bit about the first 200 years of church history..... PLEASE!

    Scott
     
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    17,409
    Ratings:
    +4,508
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    Thanks for that.

    Do you think the RCC will return to ordaining Priests who are married or able to be married, in the future. now that they have good expierence of married priests amongst their number.
    Terry
    _________________________________
    Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God
     
  7. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Possibly... It all depends on the number of clergy we have entering the priesthood in the next two decades. Unless somthing changes... I doubt the Church will continue to let churches be without Priests, and will submit out of necessity.

    I would become a Priest today, if they'd let me.... but I understand and respect all the reasons why they don't.
     
  8. Pilgrim of this Reality

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    81
    Ratings:
    +14
    I am just trying to get into the general mindset of different religious views. I do have an opened mind. As for early church history, I have studied early church history in depth and the canon was started well before the Catholic church finalized it. The Canon began when the early church was under siege by divisionism chiefly by the Greek Apologists and Ebionitism. In response to this the early church created the Apostle's Creed and started to compile the canon. This was all done by the church of Rome, before it became the Roman Catholic Church. The only authorities allowed in a congregation were elders and deacons 1 Timothy 3.

    As for reading it with another group that comes after the Catholic Church that is incorrect. The Church existed before the divisions, the congregation i worship with is just a group of people that belong to the spiritual Church.

    I know that just because I may believe it is a contradiction doesnt prove it is, just as how you, Scott, believe what i say is a contradiction and doesnt prove it thus. I am just curious as to why traditions that are not ordered by the apostles are thought to be valid. I was wrong to single out the papacy; i created a poor springboard for this discussion when the majority of beliefs do have their own traditions today.

    As for being protestant, I am not. I am a Christian,a follower of Christ, nothing else. Perhaps we make belief much more complicated than God originally intended.
     
  9. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Good to hear it...
    Interesting... about what time (years) did this occur?
    So, it was the church of Rome.. THEN it became Roman Catholic??? What changed?
    You seemed to have forgotten one;)
    Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
    Hey, me too!
     
  10. Uncertaindrummer

    Uncertaindrummer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    308
    Ratings:
    +31
    The Canon "began"? What does that mean? The books were all written. Anyone could CLAIM to know which ones were inspired. It was only the Catholic Church's infallible declaration of which ones were inspired that gave certainty to the issue.

    Spiritual Church? The Church was founded upon a rock, the Church was never to be beaten by even Hell, the Church was a light that could not be hidden, the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth--yet it does not have a material existance?

    Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They have the same ability to bind and loose as the Apostles, and those who lsiten to them listen to Christ--those who reject them reject Christ. Luke 10:16
     
  11. Pilgrim of this Reality

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    81
    Ratings:
    +14
    My timeframe is off.I had to look a few dates up in A History of Christian Thought. The divisions began prominately around 47 AD. The canon and Apostilic Creed did not surface until the 2nd century in response to the divisions.

    If what is taught by Bishops is Christ's word, why did the apostles warn about people that would teach anything contrary to what they wrote? 2 Peter 2:1-17, Romans 16:16-18. Many of these people would have been bishops, otherwise why would such teachings have such an influence?
     
  12. Pilgrim of this Reality

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    81
    Ratings:
    +14
    On afterthought, or rather epiphany,

    I apologize. I am realizing I know little through my studies. I still do not see how men can have a right to add to that which is perfect. Romans 12:2. I will most likely remain scripture only (sola scriptura?). Ultimately though, does it really matter? In the End, every individual will have to answer to God for what they have believed and done with their lives. It is up to God, not us to decide who is right or wrong. That is the source my greatest failure of thinking-I think I have to try to "save" all people that believe in "tradition" when I am just a man. Who am i to judge? Who is anyone to to judge for that matter? It is back to the books and searching for me; i was wrong in what i was thinking, even if my conscience says it was the right recourse. My mind was closed because it thought itself open.
     
  13. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    Well said Pilgrim.... it makes me think of a quote from Vatican II:

    "(T)he bonds which unite the faithful are mightier than anything which divides them. Hence, let there be unity in what is necessary, freedom in what is unsettled, and charity in any case."
    [Gaudium et Spes (Hope and Joy) #92]
     
Loading...