It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is the Catholic Church Going to Allow Priests To Marry?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
THe reasoning behind that principle is quite simple: "Jesus did not married a women only because he married the Church", just as all Christian priests must do, at least according to the Catholic church. On a sociological level,it is to negate marriage with an individual for marrying an INSTITUTION, or God, more specifically. The priest has to be devoted to his church and to believers as a man devoted to his wife, as a nun is devoted to her concregation as a women is devoted to her husband. It's all symbolic... Christanity is full of deep symbolism anyway.

It also goes with the principle of renouncing to your condition as human, and especially renouncing to physical love (since marriage understates a sexual fusion between two partners). So it's not so nonsense than it looks...

The only thing I still don,t understand is the inequity between mens and womens in the Church... why would'nt nuns be authorised to be in charge of a church or congregation and do the masses??? I guess here that's the real problem with Catholicism, and Christianity overall.




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Listen to this, as I am not religious, I am a spiritual person

I beleive a lot in "equilibre" that means "ying & yang" the "positve & negative"
Male and female energies complete. There is no balance if not. We all need the oposite energie. (as for gays, it's the same thing, some men have more feminine energies and complete with soul mate anyway) Everybody have a soul mate, a soul mate is what makes you complete in your life on earth. So priest are human too and need a soul mate to share their life. Everybody search for a mate, that is part of human beign. They want to share their love with somebody, everybody loves somebody or search for THAT somebody that will fullfill their life, complete themselves....it's human and soul nature...even if the priest is like "married to god" it does not mean that he can't have a soul mate to share love. Everybody is married to god, the soul is always connected to god, the source. The rest is part of man-made religion that is not right. Who can say to someone to not love? Did god wanted priest to be married with him, to serve god and only god? God is loving, he wants his children to love each other, there is no selfish god that will keep someone's love for itself

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by Mynaeris


Jesus was not married. simple.





Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was not married? Since there is more evidence he was married, rather than not, you should show proof that he was not married. I've yet to see where in the Bible it states that Jesus was not married. Where is it?


Where is this poroof that he was married? Is it in the Da Vinci codes ? some historical record? A marriage contract? There is no reference to Jesus ever being romantically involved , not to even speak of marriage in either the writings of the Bibles ( Not any of the books of the new Testament), nor the dead sea scrolls nor the writings of the historian Josephus (contemporary of Jesus) . So if you can find me something dated around this time I would be amazed.

The point of this discussion is about priests marrying - I repeat again, seems nobody knows how to respond to these points:

1) Buddhist monks don't marry , so Zabilgy is wrong in implying its only catholics;
2) Pedophilia and homosexuality can not be resolved by making a priest marry a woman;
3) Sexual abuse is not only a problem that the Catholic priests have, reformed churches have the same problems - google and you will find any number of sources;
4) There is no proof anywhere that Jesus was married - so that argument is completely moot;
5) We once again address the issue of chastity and celibacy , which is a choice that catholic priests make, it is not enforced on them, they can become lay priests if they choose , just not be in the monasteries. Many of us would like to have our lives and be sheltered , fed and cared for , whilst having families? Is it the job of the congregation to ensure that priests enjoy these? NO. They have to find the way that christians have through the centuries of serving God , whilst living a more fruitful life;
6) Is the role of priests a useful one? Not that I have seen. It's a retreat they choose - what are they retreating from if they are allowed to have a wife and family? and
7) Obscure references built upon other obscure references do not make any of the references credible.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
The topic of this thread was "Why aren't priests allowed to marry??" Can we get back on that topic??


From what I understand of the Catholic Church, correct me if someone here is Catholic, they base their examples of how the church should be run by...guess who? If you said Jesus, you win! Therefore, Jesus, being the head-honcho, rabbi-supreme, modelo por personas de Dio, CEO of the Christian company, would be an example to what a priest should do, yes? Paul says it's better to not marry and sites a valid reason why ('cause we tend to lose focus) but I think if it strengthens the focus, all the better! Get me not wrong, I think Paul as a boat-load of great things to say, but tend to side with Christ on these topics.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy



Firstly, calm down, sonny, change your tone.


First of all, don't call me sonny and don't tell me to change my tone. What am I one of your children?

Giving me a reply like the one I quote now, which means a reply without any arguments to counter mine is not only arrogant and rude but extremely childish. If you don't want me to call you 'sonny' or something like that, stop behaving like a child or I will be forced to treat you like one.
Regarding Jesus: he was not a Jew (as per religion), he was the God's son (or someone like that), he doesn't have any religion because he is an object of one. The Jews are the people who don't consider him their God.
At the beginning, until, perhaps, 395, there was only one Church - the Catholic Church. Then the Byzantine Church was formed - the part of the Catholic Church that 'rebelled'.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Catholic Priests CAN.
Dallas



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Where is this poroof that he was married? Is it in the Da Vinci codes ? some historical record? A marriage contract? There is no reference to Jesus ever being romantically involved , not to even speak of marriage in either the writings of the Bibles ( Not any of the books of the new Testament), nor the dead sea scrolls nor the writings of the historian Josephus (contemporary of Jesus) . So if you can find me something dated around this time I would be amazed.


Where in the bible does it say whether Jesus ate corn? If the bible does not mention Jesus eating corn, does this mean that he never ate corn? Show me where it says he never ate corn, and I will then believe that he must not have eaten any corn. (Now, do the same for marriage!)



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Where in the bible does it say whether Jesus ate corn? If the bible does not mention Jesus eating corn, does this mean that he never ate corn? Show me where it says he never ate corn, and I will then believe that he must not have eaten any corn. (Now, do the same for marriage!)


I am guessing english is your second language, or hoping at least. Firstly the corn thing is as tenuous an argument as I have seen on ATS. But if you had read this discussion from the first posting you would have noted that Jesus' marriage was one of the arguments that was put forward for priests being allowed to marry. Since this is a fallacious argument, with no concrete proof to be found, the burden of proof falls on the person making this radical suggestion. Furthermore an event as important as a marriage can not be compared to something as insignificant as what he ate at meals, in contrast to something as significant as a marriage, which is never mentioned or even alluded to in the Bible.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Where in the bible does it say whether Jesus ate corn? If the bible does not mention Jesus eating corn, does this mean that he never ate corn? Show me where it says he never ate corn, and I will then believe that he must not have eaten any corn. (Now, do the same for marriage!)


I am guessing english is your second language, or hoping at least. Firstly the corn thing is as tenuous an argument as I have seen on ATS. But if you had read this discussion from the first posting you would have noted that Jesus' marriage was one of the arguments that was put forward for priests being allowed to marry. Since this is a fallacious argument, with no concrete proof to be found, the burden of proof falls on the person making this radical suggestion. Furthermore an event as important as a marriage can not be compared to something as insignificant as what he ate at meals, in contrast to something as significant as a marriage, which is never mentioned or even alluded to in the Bible.


Actually, English is my first language. You shouldn't be one to 'point fingers', due to your misspellings.

You must not read very well, or comprehend well. Others seem to understand what I'm saying, why aren't you? Is 'English' your first language? I apologize if it is not, and will explain what I'm saying.

If the bible leaves something out, does that mean that it did not happen? I have never read anything in the bible which states that Jesus was not married. Does this mean that Jesus was not married, simply because the bible does not mention it?

[edit on 10-2-2005 by SourGrapes]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I was mistaken, its obvious logic that is not your first language. To be brutal it is deemed acceptable behavior on ATS that if you claim something to be so, you disclose your source. There is no source to prove that Jesus was married. I speculate you have red hair? Does that make it so?

However i notice you also didn't manage to read the other questions in my posting. Or don't have any answers.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Does this mean that Jesus was not married, simply because the bible does not mention it?


I think this would've been pretty important if he were. All kinds of disciples, followers and Pharisees would be asking about it. Why does God's son need a wife? Especially since he's going to get nailed to a cross. As big a fan as they are about lineage, I think too if there were a 'successor' it'd be big news.

If it were true, and people did not care (the chances seem to be getting slimmer here), it would probably not be mentioned because it doesn't matter. What does this have to do with God, salvation, eternity, etc?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I was mistaken, its obvious logic that is not your first language. To be brutal it is deemed acceptable behavior on ATS that if you claim something to be so, you disclose your source. There is no source to prove that Jesus was married. I speculate you have red hair? Does that make it so?

However i notice you also didn't manage to read the other questions in my posting. Or don't have any answers.



What questions are you talking about? Red hair? No, brown w/highlights. You keep attacking my 'English', what are you talking about? Give me examples, don't just attack someone's posts as 'second language'. You seem to be the one who's 'under' educated here. Me? I'm currently attending SUNY (ah, SUNY - you should know that one! You are in NY?) for my Master's.

Theology is not one of my studies, however I've always found it interesting. (I even wanted to major in it at one time, but didn't see myself as a Priest or Preacher.)

You seem to be attacking me because you can't come up with anything of any 'substance' to argue your point. Yes, we have all read that 'Monks do not marry'. You have stated that repeatedly. I believe the OP even acknowledged that you are 'correct' in regard to his leaving it out of his post.

I've always been a curious person. I don't believe everything that is told to me. I like proof. I do not see 'proof' in the bible that Jesus was never married, therefore my opinion is that he may have been. The bible does not say he was married, nor does it say that he was not. When do we challenge this? Do you believe everything you are told? I don't.

(By the way, I was raised Catholic. In fact, I'm leaving in 10 minutes to see my son's first reconciliation. I went to my Grandfather's funeral Tuesday, which was also at the Catholic church. They had female 'alter boys'. Times are changing. The Catholic church will eventually change 'with the times', or risk losing members.)

You are arguing something that you cannot prove. You cannot prove that Jesus was never married, just like I cannot prove he was. However, 'common sense' is more in favor of his being married than not.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Well now

The bible, the coran, the torah or anykind of saint book are plenty of misunderstood stuff and was totally rewritten for the purpose of kings and elite! Sorry to say this like that, but that is enough!!!!!!!!
It was 2000 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you see some difference between now and then?
Stop it, you are just arguing for absolutely nothing. God is good and god forgive even if you don't ask to be forgiven....

AS for me......
I am LEAVING ATS for good now, because I cry to see people so mad, so frustrated for the bible (or anything that comes from religions, politics, corporation or organization) Everything I say is NEVER listened to, I am here to enlight you and nobody gives a crap about me and I understand....you young souls are scared of me....just one thing: the bible is just a old book with old stuff! People are going crazy with the bible! You know what...god told me humans prophets should never wrote that book or any other saint book, it just cause chaos around the world
That's it...I'm outta here 4ever....


I still send you love dear one because I'm a loving person
Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I'm sure no one intentionally meant to ignore or push you away from the group. I know I didn't, can anyone else say the same with me?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The RCC decided in it infinite wisdom 500 years after Jesus, that no clergy were to be admitted if married, and if they were already married, they were to cease sexual relations with their wives. Why? because they decided to elevate the order of the priesthood above all men and women. To be chaste made them closer to God than you. Now then, that misguided logic would also suggest that the married man when he is dead and being judged cannot attain the same closeness to God as these priests. There must be a separate Heaven for mothers and fathers.

If God had wanted his priests to not marry, he would have made this known to them 3,760 years before Jesus roamed Galilee. If sex is such a nasty and defiling thing, this very same act which brought these priests into this world, then God would have made man as aquatic invertebrates. If Jesus wanted his priests to be unmarried, he would not have chosen married men as his followers.

The great irony is that if Peter were alive today, he would be denied the priesthood and the papacy, because he was married. (emphasis added)

Was Jesus married? Yes he was! When one reads John 2 with open eyes, they will find it to be so, the case for which has been made in other threads supported by far better logic than the vacuous excuse of it not being in the Bible, which is being invoked selectively here and hypocritically no less, for nowhere in Jesus’ words does it say priests cannot marry, neither does he mention original sin. Both of these doctrines were the dictatorial decrees of a church with no basis in fact. The water to wine was the first miracle Jesus ever did, so why Mary a guest at someone else’s wedding would find it necessary to go to Jesus to perform a miracle she never knew he was capable of doing can only be explained that it was his wedding, in his house where she was the hostess.

As for what Paul says, who cares? He decided on his own to issue his own laws, laws which Jesus did not pass. No wonder the Catholic Church declared themselves followers of Paul, it is a church based on his principles they built and tossed in a few in the name of Jesus.

And Amelia, please don’t leave. It takes a lot of work and repetitiveness to get through to those who do not wish to apply logic or reason since they would rather pretend that each time an issue surfaces, they are seeing it for the first time. Being ignored does not always mean they are not bothering with what you say, it very often means, there is no counter to your argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
And Amelia, please don’t leave. It takes a lot of work and repetitiveness to get through to those who do not wish to apply logic or reason since they would rather pretend that each time an issue surfaces, they are seeing it for the first time. Being ignored does not always mean they are not bothering with what you say, it very often means, there is no counter to your argument.



I absolutely agree with SomewhereinBetween. I've read many of Amelia's posts (she seems to be more kind-hearted than most of us here
). It takes many different types of people to keep these threads going. If not, it would be a boring site w/no new input. I know I've learned quite a bit from the input of others (especially those who do disagree with me). This board has even opened my eyes to subjects I never knew, or cared for.

Debating is healthy. As we age, we sometimes tend to argue (debate) more, as we tend to be more closed minded. Your expression of 'love and peace' shows your youthfulness (not 'youth' in a physical sense, but mental form), which is also healthy. (I find this form of 'youthfulness' very wise. Some of us are so 'aged' in our beliefs.)

Amelia, can you 'wholeheartedly' say that you've learned nothing from these boards in the past year of your tenure? We do learn from your posts, even bringing some of us 'back to earth' with what is truely important. I don't like to see people leaving boards, for the sake of arguement. If we didn't argue, there'd be no conspiracy board.

(I'm sure even Maynaeris and I may agree on other topics. We'd probably even find one another interesting. Please don't make your decision to leave based on the healthy debates which we may never even resolve, or find answers to in the first place. It sure is nice to see someone post with insight such as yours.)



[edit on 10-2-2005 by SourGrapes]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Thanks guys!

I guess you are right. I always say I wanna leave ATS because it affects me too much. I spend a lot of energies trying to make a point of view that sometimes seems too much simple for others. I just want to show the neutral side, the answer of our questions is always there inside the heart, but with people's "ego" it comes out in a big fight because everybody wants to be right even if sometimes they know they are wrong...
I'm the most neutral person because I understand how you feel, I can feel everybody's frustration, joy or sadness and there is a lot of frustration...I just think that it's time to start a whole new world. Starting with new beleifs, new self power....we are all important individuals and we need to stick together, not fight. Just remember dear ones that we are strong, that we are above all those fights. We need compassion. We are above everything that you feel you are not in control. God is everywhere all the time, like I said....there is no religion....trust your own soul. That is not a lie, or an hoax or a religion, it's the truth...

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
BTW, just got back from Reconciliation. (It's OT from this topic, but not sure if it merits a new one.) It was boring, but a little entertaining. Of course my thoughts were on this thread the whole time!

For those who are new to the Catholic religion, First Reconciliation is the first time you go to confession with the priest, and repent your sins.

I never understood why we had to 'repent' to another human being? Can't I just repent in the privacy of my own home? Is this just another way for the church to collect money? (Making us believe that a Priest stands between us and God? If you are spiritual, shouldn't you have a connection with God w/out the need for a 'middle man'?) Will my message make it to God without a messenger that proclaims to be 'closer to God'?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
God knows you are sorry even before you pray to confess. God do not ask for anything, you are part of him, forget about you and god= different, that is hard to explain but that is reality.

God loves you, IT is not a human person. It's nothing that MAN from earth can understand, certainly not a person who is religious. FOrget what you learned at school. God knows everything, but god judge nothing.

Unconditional love to yourself and others is what takes the negative energies away and bring positive ones.

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxx
Don't worry...everything is fine



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The RCC decided in it infinite wisdom 500 years after Jesus, that no clergy were to be admitted if married, and if they were already married, they were to cease sexual relations with their wives. Why? because they decided to elevate the order of the priesthood above all men and women. To be chaste made them closer to God than you. Now then, that misguided logic would also suggest that the married man when he is dead and being judged cannot attain the same closeness to God as these priests. There must be a separate Heaven for mothers and fathers.

If God had wanted his priests to not marry, he would have made this known to them 3,760 years before Jesus roamed Galilee. If sex is such a nasty and defiling thing, this very same act which brought these priests into this world, then God would have made man as aquatic invertebrates. If Jesus wanted his priests to be unmarried, he would not have chosen married men as his followers.


Very true. The office of priesthood in scripture 100% authorizes, even advocates that priests should be married. Aaron, the father of all Levitcal priests had children. Ahimelech, Abiathar, Zadok, on and on and on.
Catholic priests' so-called chaste ideology is not only not sriptural, but spawns fruit of disgusting behavior patterns. Those poor children.


As for what Paul says, who cares? He decided on his own to issue his own laws, laws which Jesus did not pass. No wonder the Catholic Church declared themselves followers of Paul, it is a church based on his principles they built and tossed in a few in the name of Jesus.


Well, now Somewhere, hold on a sec. Paul aint that bad. Heck, if the RCC really followed his teachings, then why so many inconsistenies...

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Thank God for Paul we don't have to go sit in a booth confessing our sins to a possible child molestor. Thank God for Paul teling us that it is by grace that we are saved and not by Catholic works of Penance, that we may not boast. Thank God that Paul says that where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. thank God for Paul that his writings will help to abolish the RCC one of these days.

If you want to focus on him discriminating women, go right ahead. He wasn't perfect, hey, he wasn't even married. Of course he's gonna have biased viewpoints. Are all his sayings THE word of God? What is the word of God, anyway? Isn't it him who says all scripture is God breathed? Do you think he was lofty enough to include his mere letters as scripture. Even if he did, they are still just his opinion. Wouldn't it be safer to say his views were what we now would call a bible commentary? Don't throw out his baby with his bathwater. He was a chosen vessel of God. He was not perfect, his letters are not perfect. A large problem today exists in the evangelical church for exalting Paul's writings as Canon and yet not following all his teachings. This is hypocrocy. Paul states that women should wear head coverings. What percentage of women in the church wear head covering? .01%? Paul states women should be silent. Go to a local church near you and see if the women are silent. Amy Grant, Rebecca St. James, etc. I'm not saying that that the church SHOULD follow these teachings, I am pointing at the hypocrocy of following Paul's words as gospel truth. There needs to be a balanced understanding of his writings. Don't loose focus of his main message, and that is that Jesus Christ died for all sinners, as a sacrifice of love, that all can live eternally with him and his Father. Don't dismiss Christianity because you see the faults of man. Stop excusing yourselves. Besides, Paul's letters have done more to the demise of the RCC and the ascent of Protesantism than ANYTHING else.

You mention that Jesus was married. Go ahead and think this, this is a glorious thought. Even if it wasn't true.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join