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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank for that.Scott1 said:Terry,
Celibacy was not imposed on the Roman Catholic clergy until the twelfth century.
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.Terrywoodenpic said:I would not mind a PM giving the run up to the change and what brought it about.
1st point, Jeremiah was forbidden by God not menalthough it's true that Peter was married, it is also true that the early Church was given authority by Christ himself....to bind and loose. With this authority the Church does indeed have the right to choose for the flock according to what is wise in the wisdom of the Church. This is not to be seen as odd because there are many examples in the Bible. Here are some:
These are some examples that in Christendom it is not an odd practice. It is also to be noted that in the Eastern Catholic Churches they are indeed married.
- Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry (Jer. 16:1-2).
- Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15).
- Paul qualifies his strong endorsement of celibacy by adding: "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35).
- Matthew 19:12......others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
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.Pilgrim of this Reality said: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.
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.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.
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".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.
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.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.
... 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!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.
Thanks for that.Scott1 said: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
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.Terrywoodenpic said: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.
Good to hear it...Pilgrim of this Reality said:I am just trying to get into the general mindset of different religious views. I do have an opened mind.
Interesting... about what time (years) did this occur?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.
So, it was the church of Rome.. THEN it became Roman Catholic??? What changed?This was all done by the church of Rome, before it became the Roman Catholic Church.
You seemed to have forgotten oneThe only authorities allowed in a congregation were elders and deacons 1 Timothy 3
Hey, me too!As for being protestant, I am not. I am a Christian,a follower of Christ, nothing else.
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.Pilgrim of this Reality said: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.
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?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.
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 10:16I am just curious as to why traditions that are not ordered by the apostles are thought to be valid.