Why are Catholic Priests unable to marry?

reply to post by DigitalGrl

You missed my point.
And I never said Church was created 1054. Please.

Check this:
en.wikipedia.org...
We Slavs have a bit different order and books included from Greeks.

reply to post by Vojvoda


First off...wikipedia..not a source...its not written by academics, it could have easily been written by you.

second of all, i go to a russian orthodox church, bibles are the same between greek, russian, and serbian. the only diffences between the churches are the cultures in them. bibles are the same, theology is the same, even the liturgy is the same. i know that orthodox do have some more of the hellenistic period books in the bible than the catholics do, and ordering may be different but that also goes by the bible that you get. meaning whether it is niv rsv...etc...


the way you worded your last comment was really bad english so it seemed to say that the eastern orthodox church was created in 1054.

nevertheless, you have made comments that are not factual...about the orthodox, catholic, and protestant church history.

namely....where the protestants got their bible....martin luther created protestant bible not the orthodox. that doesnt even make sense.
details of the great schism
and you even said orthodox priest HAVE to be married
(which another orthodox person came on here and refuted, along with myself.)

all im saying is check your facts and make sure the information that you spread is correct. this isnt an attack.


Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl


[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
First off...wikipedia..not a source...its not written by academics, it could have easily been written by you.

second of all, i go to a russian orthodox church, bibles are the same between greek, russian, and serbian. the only diffences between the churches are the cultures in them. bibles are the same, theology is the same, even the liturgy is the same. i know that orthodox do have some more of the hellenistic period books in the bible than the catholics do, and ordering may be different but that also goes by the bible that you get. meaning whether it is niv rsv...etc...

Sorry, but here are Books of Maccabees are not part of Old Testament. Are they part of Greek version of Bible? But, to be honest there are two groups in Serbian Orthodox Church about what books of Old Testament should be in and out of Bible (Palestinian vs. Alexandrian canon). In Serbia is officially accepted Palestinian Canon.
More about it here: home.it.net.au...
The rest I agree.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
the way you worded your last comment was really bad english so it seemed to say that the eastern orthodox church was created in 1054.

English is not my mother tongue [as you can see from location].

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
namely....where the protestants got their bible....martin luther created protestant bible not the orthodox. that doesnt even make sense.

I don’t know how to express my statement proper in English. That made confusion.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
and you even said orthodox priest HAVE to be married
(which another orthodox person came on here and refuted, along with myself.)

Priest in theory doesn’t have to be married, and after ordination he can’t marry any more even if he wants. But here in Serbia, Serbian Orthodox Church doesn’t allow ordination if priest is unmarried. For parish priests I am 100% sure. The same is for deacons.
When student graduate at www.bfspc.bg.ac.yu... Orthodox Theological Faculty at University of Belgrade and wants to become priest he has to marry or else he can become monk as unmarried [if he doesn’t want to be ‘just’ professor of theology].

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
all im saying is check your facts and make sure the information that you spread is correct. this isnt an attack.

As I said problem is language.

Finally someone who may have some information. What do you know about the Dajjal? What is he supposed to be like? I can't find much about him.

The most famous thing about that Dajjal figure is that one of his eyes would be defective, by which he is identified. For details below are the videos:

www.youtube.com...

video.google.com...

Some believe 7, 8, 13, 14, etc. And some don't even consider the Hadith that mentions him as being inspired so they also provide zero. I've heard all differing numbers who all swear they are correct but the general consensus is seven years.

I’ve heard about him from both Shiites and Sunnis, got the general consensus of more than 8 years.

Hon, you need to check into the Hadith. Again, not all Muslims even believe in the Mahdi just like not all Christians believe there will be a literal Antichrist. But if you go by the actual literal texts, yes.

Checked the hadiths but what I perceived from them is that this Mahdi figure will settle things for the Messiah (at least that’s what described in the videos)

Al Mahdi will reclaim the earth to be under Islamic political and religious rule. Christians and Jews are mentioned specifically as being given a chance to convert or die.

Nah, there is no compulsion in religion, a universal Islamic belief.

Jesus shares His throne with no one. I also have a sneaking suspicion the Dajjal will actually be a Christian figure with the truth who Islam claims to be the Antichrist. It's so twisted it's sick.

The Mahdi will die before Jesus’ rule, no point of sharing the throne

PS: Apologies for going off topic guys.

reply to post by Unlettered


Thanks so much for your reply. Other than being blind in one eye and later being killed is the only thing I could find about the Dajjal. I can't see the videos from this computer but I will check them out on my other computer. Thanks again!

reply to post by Vojvoda


Yea i have been a member of both greek and russian orthodox churches....(im an american convert to orthodoxy...so i go to whatever orthodox church is the closest to me.....) the greek, russian, and serbian orthodox here all have the exact same books in their bible. yes they have maccabees as well. maybe in serbia it is different. but my issue wasnt with that...it was with the comment that seemed as if you were saying the orthodox changed the bible and then the protestants got that bible from them.) but i guess it was just a language barrier problem. i have alot of serbian orthodox friends as well, and checked with them and apparently here in american the serbian orthodox do not require a priest to be married. i guess that may be more of a cultural thing within that specific country than an actual orthodox canon requirement.

Kind regards,
Digitalgrl

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
Yea i have been a member of both greek and russian orthodox churches....(im an american convert to orthodoxy...

Are you now member of OCA?

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
so i go to whatever orthodox church is the closest to me.....) the greek, russian, and serbian orthodox here all have the exact same books in their bible. yes they have maccabees as well. maybe in serbia it is different.

I wrote: Palestinian vs. Alexandrian canon. Both are correct, but every Church decided which use. Here is Palestinian, so Maccabees are not included.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
but my issue wasnt with that...it was with the comment that seemed as if you were saying the orthodox changed the bible and then the protestants got that bible from them.) but i guess it was just a language barrier problem.

Yes, I think I thought about Holy Tradition and Bible.

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
i have alot of serbian orthodox friends as well, and checked with them and apparently here in american the serbian orthodox do not require a priest to be married. i guess that may be more of a cultural thing within that specific country than an actual orthodox canon requirement.

Kind regards,
Digitalgrl

I think it has with demographic catastrophe among Serbs, too. Priests are encouraged by Church to have more than two children [majority of people have only one child].

yes, i am a member of the OCA. but we have have A greek church near my college so i go there during the school year. (i love their style of music). but i was raised lutheran (first protestants obviously ) and there is nothing similar to orthodoxy in it. the bible is different (use NIV) and so are ideas on creation, science, Lutherans use an altered version of the nicene creed, and their concept of original sin is different as well. so thats why i disagreed when you said that the protestants got their bible and traditions from the Orthodox church.

yes, i agree, i believe the issue with the serbian priest hood has to do with more cultural ideas than religious ones.


Digitalgrl

reply to post by Stalks in Shadows


They used to be able to marry. not sure why it was banned. suppose it was just so that woman would have no power? yea, they were big on that bull then.

reply to post by Gorman91



might help to read the other posts in the thread


[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

In my two cents -- I would say is that it increases control over the priests, because, they are not spiritually competent to begin with, they are part of, one of many, job security cons just as the Vatican is nothing but a continuation of the Caesars under what was becoming the popular religious fever at the time. Far less that 1% of the population is genuinely interested in their true spiritual interests at any given time. A much higher percent is interests in getting in on a free ride some how.

It's the same ploy as the Sex, No Sex dogmas promoted by the church to manipulate their followers.

In the case of celibacy it means that sexual repression will lead to blackmail, leverage, complicity, compliance by the priests. The degree to which people are cultivated or planted in world events is something most of us just have no grasp of. People are always be leverage for the control of the banks and the pseudo religions.

Sometimes it is done in the spirit of "being spiritual" against the naive, well intending priests, sometime as blackmail, extortion. After all once you have a population of individuals who have gotten use to the cushy life of priesthood ( of the nuns for that matter), you have a population of compromised individuals, most of which will "Rationalize" what the are being told is for the best or being "faithful".

reply to post by ReelView


You may be on to something but Christianity and the Church are hardly the first religon to promote celibacy as a means to achieving spiritual enlighenment.

Priests in the Polish National Catholic Church (pncc.org) are allowed and encouraged to marry. We have encountered one of their priests and he has a beautiful wife and two children. He understands what it is like to live in the "Real" world. It was refreshing.

Why are Catholic priests unable to marry? The altar boy's parents would not sign the consent forms. That is my guess anyways.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure why the Catholic church created this dogma but it is not bliblical.

Actually, this is not a Dogma, it is a Doctrine. It is a practice that may change if the Church deems it fitting to do so.

As has been stated, it is an effort to emulate Christ and to provide less entaglement to the physical world. There are, however, married Priests. Clergy who convert, are married and wish to become Priests are fairly regularly accepted as Catholic clergy (specifically Priests) while being married.

Priests are NOT forbidden to marry. They just are not allowed (generally) to be a Priest if they marry. In fact there are numerous Priests who leave the clergy to marry and remain happy Catholics.

Eric

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
So if Paul saw this coming then he's basically bashing Catholicism way before it ever really came about? He foresaw the madness that the Catholic church would bring upon Christianity...

Oy. This went downhill quickly. About halfway down the first page.

Anyway, if Ashley was stating categorically that Paul was specifically speaking about Catholic Priests than that is conjecture on her part. I'm not saying it's eisigesis, as a reasonable person could come to that conclusion; but it is clearly not the only interpretation.

Eric

My understanding was that in the early days of the Catholic church some of the bishops were getting too powerful. They would install their children in positions of power and the wealth that they acquired during the course of their life was not being turned over to the church.

So the church made a decision to not allow priests to marry.

That way, when a donation was made to the church, it couldn't be appropriated by a bishop as personal property.

I think that it just came down to money. Then it was explained to the masses in a different way.

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
Doesn't the whole Vatican Banking thing start to sound like when Jesus came upon the Temple and knocked over the table of the people collecting the coins? Since when does God need money? Sounds like the same story is repeating itself again, I wonder when God will send his son to knock over their tables and upset their racket scheme?

Uhhhh, no. It doesn't. Unless you are discussing the P2 banking scandal of about 30 years ago?

The Vatican is a religious, political and geographic entity. It is a sovereign nation. Why do you think that it shouldn't or wouldn't have a bank? Why are you equating the Vatican to God? God doesn't need money. On the other hand, the Vatican needs to pay Priests, curators, health care workers, electric bills, etc.

Seriously, this is ridiculous.

Eric

I need to start looking at the dates of posts. I didn't realize that this was an 8 month old thread that was revived by a troll.

Blechhh.


Eric

Originally posted by Stalks in Shadows
I never got the "Who" part answered on the website but it did mention that it more closely followed the life of Jesus Christ and made people more open to sacrifice Earthly things if the priest had made a sacrifice of celibacy....

While this makes sense to a religious person or a Catholic, it doesn't to me... What does make more sense is the fact that if a Priest were allowed to marry his children could possibly become the next Priest or Bishop due to politics..

I was reading a history book a few days ago and came across something of interest as it applies to this thread. On the idea of politics and priest-families this agrees with what I've read. More specifically, Ambrose of Milan was concerned that priests would begin a kind of 'dynasty' like an emperor by having children as successors.

"So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." - www.ccel.org...

You can see where this is going, right? It was a progression based on Paul, as someone had mentioned previously.

"The serpent eats this dust, if the Lord Jesus is favourable to us, that our spirit may not sympathize with the weakness of the flesh, nor be set on fire by the vapours of the flesh and the heat of our members. "It is better to marry than to burn," for there is a flame which burns within." - www.catholic-forum.com...

The picture that's being painted here is a progression:
1.) Celibate - Perfect devotion and unity with the faith
2.) Marriage - Hey, you're a sinner and understand that 'ya have to'
3.) Fornicate - Unsanctioned, unforgiven, sin leading to hellfire

In comes monastacism, which wasn't really a new concept, but rather gathered people from living out in the desert and moved them into a building with more emphasis on missionary works.

"In many of those sermons, Ambrose expounded upon the virtues of asceticism. He was so persuasive that noble families sometimes forbade their daughters to attend his sermons, fearing they'd trade their marriageable status for a life of austere virginity." - www.christianitytoday.com...

Although this sounds like a bad thing, it did give women a choice to either marry or enter a convent, as opposed to having no choice.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by saint4God]