Featured Pope Sanctions Gay Clergy!

You can make up all the stories you like - the problem is that according to the actual Bible (1 Cor 9) - the pastors, evangelists, Apostles were not celebate and those few that were - simply made it a personal choice - such that if they ever changed their mind on that point - they could just get married and keep on in the ministry.

There is no "lose your job threat" hanging over their heads - in the actual Bible.

And it is that threat that creates the unnatural case of the priesthood where men that clearly should be married - are in the unmarried state - engaged in evil - and still serving in the role of a pastor - purely because of the job threat.

No doubt they thought they would be "celebate for life" when they joined (unless they knew something the general public does not know) - but as the years went by perhaps they changed their minds - and were stuck.

Indeed - from the police records - that seems to have happened a lot.

in Christ,

Bob

 

A couple of points about this passage. You've made some logical jumps here that are evidence of your own theological bias. But you start with one point and made a whole bunch of points that don't follow with the passage. First of all context. What is Paul talking about? In this Passage is the point of it by Paul to refute a celibate clergy? No. Because in fact as I've shown previously Paul had just finished saying previously in the same letter

So obviously from Paul's own discourse we see he doesn't have a problem with celibate clergy. Thus what your implied context is fails. So lets go back to what Paul is talking about. Just before chp 9 begins Paul is talking about eating food that had been offered up to idols.

He's speaking about the liberty we as Christians have not to worry about eating food that had been offered up to idols saying that the people who are offended by it have weak conscience. Just after that he begins Chp 9 by saying

He's referencing the fact that some of these people are judging him on his actions but he's making the point that He's free and has the right to eat and drink and if he wanted to he could take a believing wife. In other words its not a criticism of the celibate life style but an affirmation of his role as an Apostle and to be free to eat and be supported by those whom he serves. If Paul wanted to take a wife he could. But he chose not to. This is the claim he makes for himself.

He at least we know is single at this point and remains that way. However, there is nothing in that passage you just quoted that can be construed as arguing against Apostolic succession. You just brought that up because you have an issue with it and wrongly applied a passage that has nothing to do with it. Or that there is something wrong with the Catholic Priesthood which is an English adaptation to the word Presbyter. in fact your ignorance of Catholic belief is glaring because you believe that we teach against the priesthood of the believer. The Church holds to the priesthood of the believer

The men we call priest are church administrators and they have a specialized function regarding administering to the Body of Believers who are a priesthood in their own right. Again the modern English word for Priest is taken from Presbyter and you should not the 3 classes of clergy in the church are titled Deacon, Presbyter, and Episcopate. Internally this is how they are referenced. But I only tell you that to show your lack of understanding Catholic Belief. Again I want you to note the Passage you quoted does not support your assertions. You can only say that the Apostles were free to marry but to say its a criticism of celibacy is to take it out of context. Note in 1 Cor 7 Paul says Celibacy is the better way.

Again a glaring obvious admission of ignorance of Catholic belief. Jesuits and Benedictine are the same rite. Both are in the Latin right. And by the way even in the Latin rite there are married Priest though not many. In fact I know one. As for being fired the question isn't about their Celibacy but rather the vows they take. What does the scripture say?

If a man cannot abide by the vow he shouldn't take it. Unless you suggest its ok to break vows. In which case you go against scripture.

 

Continued....

You are confused. The real reason you condemn The Catholic Church for Celibacy has nothing to do with homosexuality rather it is a belief on your part like EWF that man cannot control his sexual appetites. Rather than as scriptures teach which is some men can and want to focus on the lord others cannot and therefore should be married. In short you don't believe in giving up sex to serve the Lord. That is the truth of the matter. For you Homosexuals in the Church are a happy byproduct for you to add in your accusations against the Catholic Church. However, I dare say Homosexuals in the Clergy aren't a singularly Catholic issue you have Homosexual Baptist Pastors often in secret. But closer to home Bobryan lets see what SDA are saying about gays in their world wide forum.

You are quick to point the finger but you have similar problems in your own denomination

 

I guess we can assume then - that you are not about to make some massive assumptions to promote your own bias?

Very often in historical documents the incidental references are the most telling.

The details remain - Paul points to himself and Barnabus as the exceptions to the norm. And gives no indication at all that they had some sort of "lose your job if you are not celibate" rule. And we all know that the RCC does have such a rule for it's clergy because in true unbiblical fashion it requires them to take an oath of celibacy.

This is irrefutable from the text alone.

You have not-so-subtly twisted the point.

The issue NOT whether Paul would condemn an Apostle or evangelist who like himself had on his own - chosen to be celibate - the question is whether this letter condemns or supports the idea that they had a "rule" that demanded celibate apostles, or evangelists, or bishops, or pastors.

Clearly they not only did NOT have such a rule - but they had a load of people in those positions that were not at all celibate.

True - but as with all of Paul's letters - many different topics are covered by the same letter.

That too - is irrefutable. My guess is that you yourself agree with the point.

Which by the way - explains that whole Romans 14 and "The weak conscience" that "eats only vegetables". But that is another topic.

While I am on the side topic of your off topic reference to 1Cor 8 - it is interesting that Paul would go the "eat meat offerred to idols if your conscience is ok with it" route at all - given the "council's decree" in Acts 15 that flatly forbids it.

Here again you have wrenched the point. Nobody is arguing that in 1Cor 9 someone has demanded that Paul endorse celibacy and instead he chooses to condemn it. (Or whatever you have imagined the point of argument is in that regard.)

The argument is that Paul's own words PROVE that the practice in the NT church was to have Apostles, Evangelists, bishops, pastors serve along with a believing wife.

The fact that Paul lists himself and Barnabus as an exception to the prevailing practice - is the death blow the false doctrine that Apostles, clergy, etc MUST be celibate.

We are not at all arguing that the Catholic Church even existed at that time or was celibate clergy - clearly they did not even exist at the time for him to even oppose.

The argument is purely from looking at their actual practice.

Indeed I would hope we could all agree on these simple points - the first of which destroys the idea that he had to be celibate or he could not be an Apostle, or an evangelist or a member of the NT clergy. Which "is the point" being raised here.

Err... umm.... and so?

I am not raising this 1 Cor 9 as a point arguing against Apostolic succession. We are talking about celibacy in the clergy and whether or not it is biblical to mandate it.

Why are you bringing up the Apostolic succession subject in the middle of this one??

Excuse me

1. - your own Catholic historians debunk your claim as THEY point out that the NT elders were NOT calling themselves priests at all - (hence no support for it in the NT).

2. I am not arguing this point because I know that your "priest" idea is a flawed doctrine - certainly there are NT apostles and Paul is one of them. Your claim is that you have priests AND an Apostle some place even today. My argument is about celibacy being demanded for the clergy and the fact that 1Cor 9 flatly debunks that such a demand is Biblical.

3. Arguing for "priests" does not help you at all because the Bible priests were married except for a small group as exceptions. And arguing that the Apostles and evangelists and bishops of the NT should be called "priests" does not help you on the subject of demanding celibacy for the clergy - because Paul's statement in 1Cor 9 debunks the wild idea that any such demand existed for the NT saints.

You are looking for a smoke screen - but not finding it.

Again you have misstated the point. Was I simply "not supposed to notice"?

Paul's statement flatly debunks the wild notion that the NT church demanded celibacy of the clergy.

This point is irrefutable.

Your wild claim appears to be that Paul would have to condemn even voluntary celibacy (i.e. himself) to create a statement condemning the demand of the RCC that it's clergy be celibate - has no merit at all - because the RCC practice fails on the NT practice of having married clergy with Paul and Barnabus as the "celibacy exception" even by Paul's own standards and statement - not "the rule".

That ALONE debunks the RCC practice of demanding celibacy of its clergy.

Indeed but 1Cor 7 is not restricted to the clergy and 1Cor 7 places no demand on the clergy to be celibate any more than all of the Christian church.

Only because they converted as married priests from some other denomination.

No need to toss out some smoke here as if we are going to be mislead into thinking that an RCC priest today that chooses not to be celibate any longer - can just go out and get married and continue on with every day life.

Please be serious.

The 1Cor 9 scripture says that nobody was being required to take a vow of celibacy before serving in the clergy.

Surely you would not want to go against scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

This isn't an isolated case in the SDA. A local SDA congregation has become vocal in their embrace of LGBT community. A recovery program I participate in shares church facilities with an SDA congregation that is 'inclusive'. They use the same rationale the SDA pastor T.S. is referencing. In fact they quote scripture 'Behold, says the Lord, I am doing a new thing, can you not see it?” (Isaiah 43:19) Guess you can't accuse the SDA of not sticking to 'Sola Scriptura'. I should think the SDA and Bob needs to stop trying to 'pluck splinters' & worry about 'the log's'!

 

Walter - there is no promotion of LGBT by the SDA denomination. If you find a rogue pastor or congregation here or there - it is no different than finding such a thing in any denomination.

But the statements of our denomination are published and available on the web - no inclusive language there arguing that LGBT is some new idea that God has - or something that is not condemned by the moral law of God - in Lev 18, Romans 1, 1Cor 6 etc.

If you guys are going to get RCC-demanded-celibacy of its clergy to hold water you are going to have to deal with the fact that 1Cor 9 flatly debunks your doctrine.

Taking a side swipe at some local SDA congregation on gay issues is not going to solve your problem with the doctrine vs the Bible.

Here is what SDAs say (i.e. the denomination) on their world-wide web site.

Our world wide web site has this Official SDA statement on LGBT issues

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat46.html

I guess if you have no solution for the fact that 1Cor 9 flatly debunks the RCC practice of demanding celibacy for its clergy - then skipping over to some imagined claim about SDAs and the LGBT issue is as good as any.

In any case - that official "denomination" level statement from the SDA church is -

Now I am certain there must be something of that nature said in the RCC denomination - condemning homosexuality. (AT least I would hope so). The question for this thread is whether the RCC practice of demanding celibacy is Biblical and whether or not that very practice - leads to the high incidents of homosexual abuse being exposed by the news media and law enforcement over the recent decades.

There is just no way to blame all this on BobRyan or SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, only one rite of the many, many rites in the entire Holy Catholic Church asks that any willing candidate for the priesthood remain celibate and that is the Latin Rite. Nobody is 'forbidden' to marry. If they choose to become a presbyter in the Latin Rite then they do so knowing that celibacy is the discipline of that rite. There are plenty of married priests in the Holy Catholic Church. Even the Anglican priests fleeing the apostasy of that communion and coming back into union of the Church are married. So your out of gas!

According to the people I talk to in your so called 'rogue church', more and more SDA congregations are becoming tolerant of homosexuality. I think you know it's way bigger a problem than your willing to admit on this forum. More examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ72D55UWSo

I attended California Baptist College in Riverside, Bob, and dated women at Loma Linda University at La Sierra. I know what the reality is and so do you!

 

Are you French Canadian DHK? I think sometimes you don't understand words. God made us in his own image we were order according to God's will. When we sinned we became depraved because we were disordered. In other words, going against the will of God when we were ordered to it we became disordered which leads to depravity. Disobedience is sin. And it is sin nature or our disordered nature that I'm speaking about. Sometimes I think DHK that whether you and I agree about something you have to find a way to disagree just because I'm Catholic. But you really force the disagreement at times when its really not necessary.

Who said anything about randomness? Again you are adding something to the conversation that wasn't in it originally.

I've said homosexuality is sexual deviance. However, some are more tempted to Homosexuality then other men. Some men have been abused at a point in their development and it confused their sexuality. I don't think all Homosexuals think to themselves: "Hey, I'll be homosexual because God doesn't like it." I think their sin nature dispositions them that way. Just like other men's sin nature dispositions them to fornication, or violence, or alcoholism, or greed, or idolatry. It's not just a matter of what you feed your mind. Though I agree it plays a part in many men.

Again you are either ordered to God's will or you are not. Science isn't a part of it. I think you are getting confused with natural order or the Law of Nature. There is a difference.

As I've been trying to explain they are the same thing.

No, those are diagnosis based on medial research which because they use the term disorder means that there is a general notion of proper order which follows natural law. Again, I think you are confusing terms. I'm not citing the DSM IV when I mention disorder. I think you think I am. Again I believed you are confused.

Yes you did.

Yes they were. They were born in sin and therefore disordered.

I was saying I didn't think you were a polygamist. However, DHK, certain cultures around the Mediterranean were involved in Polygamy. Even today non mormon cultures like the Maasai tribe in Kenya are Polygamist. I don't think you and I disagree about Divorce and remarriage. However, That passage in Timothy wasn't saying you must be married. It states that if you are married you should be the husband of one wife. But that isn't excluding single people from being a pastor as you seem to suggest.

DHK, think about it logically. If some men cannot receive it that means some men can receive it. And then he states the men who can are better off. Savvy? Scripture certainly doesn't prohibit celibate clergy.

 

Pray tell Bob what story did I make up? What accusation are you throwing at me now?

 

Nope just scripture.

In fact I haven't. Your first contention and that of DHK is that Pastors shouldn't be Celibate. Your second contention is that the Catholic Church requires it for its Latin rite clergy. Your third contention is that if one does not wish to be celibate that you believe they are fired. Final point is not true but that is your assumption.

At the time of the Apostles there was no requirement to be Celibate to be in the clergy. No one argues that.

And it also PROVE that not all had a wife either. This is a null point as no one has suggested that clergy at the time of the Apostles were prohibited from marriage. You in short created an argument that wasn't made.

Paul was an Apostle thus he was clergy and he was celibate. What don't you understand? Marriage wasn't required to be clergy at that time. But I agree marriage wasn't prohibited at that time either to clergy.

It seems more clear to me that you don't know why Catholics clergy are celibate. You are making allusions to the NT But we are agreed not all clergy were celibate at that time. Your first error is that you believe Catholics hold that Celibacy is dogmatic or a doctrine. It isn't. Catholics do not hold that it is "a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles". This is your first error. I've already shown you that only one Catholic rite requires clerical celibacy. The norm for Eastern rite Catholic Churches are married priest. The rule for Latin rite priest originated in the middle ages. However, there had been a tradition of celibate priest long before but it wasn't required then. So all your arguments come from the wrong premise. We agree in scriptures there are no restrictions on clergy to be married. However, there is nothing wrong with clergy to be celibate either as scripture clearly shows us. And scriptures show us that Paul and Jesus endorses celibacy for those who can handle it. And Paul claims its better. So for those who can handle it are free to make a vow to give up marriage in order to serve Jesus Christ. I think this is why we talk over each other. See, Scriptures are clear no man or woman is to have sex before they are married so at one point if we are following God's commands we have all chosen to be celibate until God calls us to be married. Latin priest simply remain celibate and make a vow to that fact. Priest are "fired" not because of marriage but rather because of infidelity to their promises.

 

My first post on this thread is #78 it does not say that "Pastors should not celibate".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2017818&postcount=78

In fact I point out that in 1Cor 9 both Paul and Barnabus are - but that the norm according to Paul in 1Cor 9 is that the clergy are not celibate.

I never argue that Paul is making a mistake by choosing to be celibate.

I argue that the church of the NT was obviously not requiring the clergy to be celibate - and neither should it today.

You have not shown us any RC priests choosing to get married after a few years in the priesthood - and how this is all "just fine" with your video of their priest wedding and how they retain their job etc.

So far - not even one example. Odd that you are complaining that we "know about that problem".

When were you going to bring in some evidence to the contrary?

How odd then the strong reaction to my 1Cor 9 post that points out that very fact "that we all know"?

Indeed. It appears that a few did not have a wife but that most of them did from 1Cor 9.

So far - now news here. Just the facts that do not fit the current practice of the RCC.

I think we can all see that clearly.

What we have suggested is that the Bible is setting the standard and when the RCC goes beyond what is written - to a policy that is frankly the opposite of what we find in the Bible - then problems are the "result".

Paul states that the other Apostles were not celibate. They were clergy - not celibate. If one chose to be - it was not a problem - if others did not choose to be - again - no problem.

At least for the NT church.

I never said it was. You are raising a straw man - I never make the argument that to be a member of the clergy you must be married - clearly Paul was not.

Again - this is the point all can see.

But we can also see that this does not fit the current practice of the RCC - that requires that their clergy take an oath of celebacy - and does not allow the priest to "get married" after a few years of service - as if "well how nice - the priest is married and may have children soon. How wonderful!"

The current model used by the RCC is not what we have in 1Cor 9. They are not letting people choose what they want to do - but rather insisting on an oath of celibacy before someone is allowed to become a member of the clergy.

This is contradicted by NT practice which clearly made no such demands.

First of all you are getting something wrong.

1. I don't think the RCC even existed at the time of Paul.

2. I am not arguing the point because of what I imagine RCs to be thinking. I make the point based on the Bible model and contrasting it to current Catholic practice.

I simply point out that the current practice does not fit the Bible - as we see in 1Cor 9 and that the problems the RCC suffers as a result are not as inexplicable as some might suppose.

Eastern Othordox Christians do not refer to themselves as Roman Catholics. Thus my repeated reference to the RCC places the point squarely where it belongs. See post 80.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2017860&postcount=80

You are raising a straw man.

The dark ages has produced many things. Be that as it may - my point was simply that the 1Cor 9 practice does not fit that of the RCC today.

And that results in some problems for the RCC.

The only error is in requiring it of the clergy.

You know - what the RCC is doing today.

I am not arguing against celibacy - I am arguing against requiring it of the clergy and firing them when they choose not to do that any more.

I am pointing to the obvious problems that the RCC has suffered in consequence.

Because they were told that the only way into the clergy was via that vow -- a very unbiblical practice to start with.

We all see the consequence.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Correction - I have been hammering the RCC vote in America for voting in favor of pro-abortion and pro-gay candidates election after election.

But this article that I linked to makes a good point to the contrary.

This points out that there is a segment of the Catholic vote that is not voting "Economics at all costs to morals".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, if I were still a Catholic today, there would be no way I could support democrats in good conscience. In fact I would insist that politicians like Joe Biden & Nancy Peloci were excommunicated

 

Bob, you can keep talking about the so called 'Catholic Vote' all you want. Most people on this forum know that most of those counted have no clue or care what the Church teaches about faith and morals anymore than the Baptists next door to me could care about what their church teaches or where it is located. Nominal, unsaved Catholics are everywhere. I'd be more concerned about all your, so called, 'rogue' SDA's gaying it up. Seems to me I remember you had to take some time off this board to run off to one of your SDA colleges to quell some 'liberal' leanings there. I'd worry more what is going on down at Loma Linda U, La Sierra if I were you than pointing fingers here. You KNOW what I'm talking about! You know 'the club' formed about a year ago, has students, faculty and staff who are involved. Members are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered. You know about this though, Bob.

 

Yet, not a word of warning for EWF's or Bob's off-topic posts. Hmmmmm Let's just hurl false accusations at the Catholic's. 'Any enemy of my enemy is my friend'!

What do Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden (phoney Catholics) have to do with 'gross immorality' in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church? Are they claiming to be bishops or something? C'mon, any comment made here that portrays Catholics in a negative light is FINE with you whether or not it is on topic or not and you know it!

 

I believe it can be shown that the 1Cor 9 point is in fact on the subject of the thread - because it relates to the Bible model for the clergy and shows even by your own standards - that they were not demanding that the clergy sign oaths of celibacy.

The result of straying from the Bible model may be seen today.

I am not talking about some local Catholic Congregation - that requires an oath of celibacy of the clergy - contrary to the Bible example nor even two or 3 such congregations. We are talking about the entire RCC denomination suffering because of that practice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ah, doncha love the media....so the pope says "it is not for him to judge"....so does that mean he embraces homosexuality......of course NOT!!! The sinner should not be marginalised but that does not mean the sin is embaced. Why Jesus sat down with sinners, and who are we who are not, for goodness sake.

I would not think this necessarily MEANS that homosexual men will rush to become priests......because of the VOW of celibacy. It is not for the faint hearted and the formation of a priest should weed out the morally weak anyway.

It makes me quite cross!

 

No homos wont rush to become priests ...they are already priests.....and its pervasive throughout the RCC. Why don't you just admit that.