tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8353542271912796715..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Responding to Ben M on priestly celibacy, with a pinch of sarcasmJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20938831359715495102010-06-01T11:22:48.267-04:002010-06-01T11:22:48.267-04:00"Now this is truly amazing. The "Whore o..."Now this is truly amazing. The "Whore of Babylon" is accused of emphasizing chastity and sexual purity to the point where they become "unhealthy and impious"!!"<br /><br /><br />Ever heard about the concept of "irony"? The Bible employs it continually by contrasting the shallow opinions of men and the profound truth of God.<br /><br />The apocalyptic "harlot" may well make an outward show of purity and infallibility, but God reveals to us what lies within, beneath the the decorated surface.Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86033426855004950972010-05-30T22:15:04.920-04:002010-05-30T22:15:04.920-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85572317126040736322010-05-29T16:26:36.403-04:002010-05-29T16:26:36.403-04:00Predictable ad hominem response from Ben M.
The M...Predictable ad hominem response from Ben M.<br /><br />The Manichaeans idealized celibacy too, you know. Buddhists still do, and with Hindus, they believe that containing one's sperm gives you occult powers (seriously).<br /><br />In fact, early Christians were probably indirectly influenced by the Gnostic abhorrence of matter when they began to think that carnal copulation (even within lawful marriage) fundamentally defiles a man, making him incapable of being truly spiritual.<br /><br /><br />In any case, in this fallen world ANY virtue can be overdone and exaggerated to the point it becomes unhealthy and impious. The virtue of celibacy/virginity included.Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1246633439631173242010-05-29T15:16:19.532-04:002010-05-29T15:16:19.532-04:00Mr. Playboy II declares:
The over-estimation of t...Mr. Playboy <i>II</i> declares:<br /><br /><i>The over-estimation of the value of virginity was one of the earliest errors to seriously infect the Christian church. … [The] Devil has won some of his greatest victories under the guise of an angel of light,</i><br /><br />And speaking of the Devil… ;)<br /><br />“Hefner blamed Christianity, which had denounced carnal urges and <i>idealized celibacy,</i> as the culprit.”<br /><br /><i>Mr Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream,</i> 2009, Steven Watts, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=m5b_eM3twmEC&pg=PA55&dq=%22Hefner+blamed+Christianity,+which+had+denounced+carnal+urges+and+idealized+celibacy,+as+the+culprit%22&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Hefner%20blamed%20Christianity%2C%20which%20had%20denounced%20carnal%20urges%20and%20idealized%20celibacy%2C%20as%20the%20culprit%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">p. 255</a>.<br /><br />LOL! You guys…!!!Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33513080872052493942010-05-29T12:02:06.920-04:002010-05-29T12:02:06.920-04:00The over-estimation of the value of virginity was ...The over-estimation of the value of virginity was one of the earliest errors to seriously infect the Christian church.<br /><br />It was so SEEMINGLY pure and noble idea that it spread quickly around. Devil has won some of his greatest victories under the guise of an angel of light, and the over-exaltation of celibacy finally led to the rise of separate priestly caste. <br /><br />Hypocrisies of monkery and the institutional degradation of non-celibate Christian laity were its full fruit.Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4729939316566115052010-05-29T05:32:26.214-04:002010-05-29T05:32:26.214-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43968710789568653412010-05-28T21:33:54.519-04:002010-05-28T21:33:54.519-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51905133255992634562010-05-28T09:13:42.525-04:002010-05-28T09:13:42.525-04:00Hey Ben M, what is this thing that Calvin and Luth...Hey Ben M, what is this thing that Calvin and Luther had for filth, especially feces? Matt Schultz said ol' Jean had his scholarly side, but it sounds to me it's just a load of you know what.<br /><br />But on a more serious note, I remember back when I was in the Worldwide Church of God, that similar langauge was used from the pulpit to denounce those who dared question the holy will of Herbert Armstrong. His favorite word was vomit. He would say things like false ministers were vomiting garbage on the congergation. However, like Lu&Cal, he did on occassion, use the langauge of excrement. I remember reading a letter he sent out around the time of his first wife's death accusing the church being full of filth, like his wife's impacted bowels. So I has to wonder what was really on these guy's minds in their 'reforming work.Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40582483844613304512010-05-27T11:23:39.289-04:002010-05-27T11:23:39.289-04:00Ben M, it is obvious now that you have no answer t...Ben M, it is obvious now that you have no answer than to the Bible passage that I gave. Let me address some of your points to me:<br /><br /><i>a. Paul and Timothy were bishops, yet both were celibate.</i><br /><br />I agree, but it was voluntary. Peter didn't demand them to be celibate or else stop leading the church.<br /><br /><i>b. Priests are exempt from the necessity of marriage since, according to your own interpretation, only bishops must be married.</i><br /><br />No, I think you misunderstand what the Bible is saying here. There was no office of "priest" in the NT church. There was the "High Priest" who is Jesus Christ, and the other is the "royal priesthood" who are the followers of Jesus Christ. There wasn't a clerical priest like we see in the RCC because there was no sacrifice left to administer to God for His people. Jesus was the final once for all sacrifice.<br /><br /><i>c. What if we change abstaining from meat to Thursdays? LOL!</i><br /><br />Then I would tell you that the Bible prohibits the enforcement of such things (see 1 Tim 4:3-5). You still haven't figured out a way to get around that passage yet have you? And yet you implied that I'm nutty?<br /><br /><i>I don’t know if I’d call burning people for singing songs one doesn’t approve of a “mistake.” But then again, that’s just me.</i><br /><br />Here you are absolutely correct. Which is exactly why I don't follow men, but Jesus Christ Himself. Here are some other examples of the RCC that I wouldn't follow which were more than mistakes:<br /><br />The heretic's fork<br /><br />Cat's paws<br /><br />The rack<br /><br />The headcrusher<br /><br />Burning at the stake<br /><br />These torture devises and more were developed by the RC clergy to make a heretic confess that he was wrong, even if say he wanted to be able to read the Bible in his own language. I don't want to follow that system.<br /><br /><i>Now I ask, what kind of talk is this from the "Great Preacher" and so-called “reformer”?</i><br /><br />You are the only one bringing up Calvin here. I don't understand why. I could probably quote from the majority of your popes things that you would disagree with. Yet you would be more obliged to have to submit to them then we would to Calvin. I really don't care about the man's problems. He too was a sinner and got things wrong and needed God's grace.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37029773642012529792010-05-27T08:35:31.507-04:002010-05-27T08:35:31.507-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-11460334509036762932010-05-27T08:31:02.308-04:002010-05-27T08:31:02.308-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-77530153112762300532010-05-27T08:22:33.456-04:002010-05-27T08:22:33.456-04:00Continued.
4) Paul most certainly was a bishop, a...Continued.<br /><br />4) Paul most certainly was a bishop, as were all the apostles. Google it!<br /><br />“Paul was a bishop” <br />“Paul was the bishop” <br />“Apostles were bishops” <br /><br />And Cyprian tells us:<br /><br />“But deacons ought to remember that the Lord chose apostles, that is, <i>bishops</i> and overseers; while apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascent of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church. But if we may dare anything against God who makes bishops, deacons may also dare against us by whom they are made; and therefore it behooves the deacon of whom you write to repent of his audacity, and to acknowledge the honour of the priest, and to satisfy the bishop <i>set over him</i> with full humility. <br /><br />"For these things are the beginnings of heretics, and the origins and endeavours of evil-minded schismatics;— <i>to please themselves,</i> and with swelling haughtiness to <i>despise him who is set over them.</i> Thus they <i>depart from the Church</i>— thus a profane altar is set up outside— thus they rebel against the peace of Christ, and the appointment and the unity of God.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050664.htm" rel="nofollow">Epistle 64:3</a>.<br /><br />“But by the confession of all parties, <i>St Paul was a bishop in the highest sense</i> in which that word is ever used…”<br /><br />Encyclopaedia Britannica, (1823), vol. 8, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=JMknAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=%22St+Paul+was+a+bishop+in+the+highest+sense+in+which+that+word+is+ever+used%22&source=bl&ots=7uYTledmWX&sig=PSWQF9BAdJvrr9RZHVYfC56nfR4&hl=en&ei=Kl7-S4LsHoeMNrSwnTw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22St%20Paul%20was%20a%20bishop%20in%20the%20highest%20sense%20in%20which%20that%20word%20is%20ever%20used%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">p. 256</a>.<br /><br />Ben: Re: perpetual abstinence in marriage is unbiblical - “Else, they cannot be one flesh. 1 Cor 7: 3.”<br />Well, that’s certainly what, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, Protestants believe.<br /><br />James: Yeah, that's so crazy, that Protestants might just believe what the Bible teaches. <br /><br />Ben: <br /><br />a. James,what, in your opinion, is the purpose of married couples abstaining at all?<br /><br />b. St. Paul teaches to abstain from sexual relations with one’s spouse for a time. But for how long a time he does not say. And so for how long a time should they abstain? <br /><br />Ben: “The traditional option of maintaining a sexless ‘spiritual marriage’ was anathema to Calvin.”<br /><br />James: Awesome. Good for Calvin. Another reason to like the guy.<br /><br />Ben: And a <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XthTqqcb13kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22calvin+the+psychopath%22&source=bl&ots=4guTg-4U8P&sig=ubYDO0LsCYtl2V8YKHm8Ec4cLUM&hl=en&ei=dl_-S_WFEYm8NoWJsTs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">few reasons not to</a>! LOL!!!Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61388271013346104092010-05-27T08:12:38.564-04:002010-05-27T08:12:38.564-04:00Ben: The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding...Ben: The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding anyone to marry - marriage is a sacrament open to all. <br /><br />James: Except priests. Do you think we're idiots or something?<br /><br />Could be! LOL! Notice I said no “doctrine,” which is quite true. Celibacy is not a <i>doctrine</i> but only a <i>disciple.</i> As such it can be modified or changed. <br /><br />Ben: God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly. <br /><br />James: What's your point? That's a matter between the individual and God, not to be mandated by the church.<br /><br />Ben: Says who, you? <br /><br />Ben: The Church has every right to set rules and conditions pertaining to the priesthood<br /><br />James: If you say so. But they violate the biblical commandment. Apparently they have "every right" to do that, too.<br /><br />Ben: So where do you find lay people in the either the Old or the New Testament deciding for themselves which doctrines and practices they will follow? <br /><br />James: And if the RCC does it, it has to be right! B/c Christ founded it! Matthew 16! Blah!!!<br /><br />Ben. What Church <i>did</i> Christ found prey tell? <br /><br />James:<br />1) You have no proof Timothy was celibate.<br />2) Paul CHOSE to be celibate. RCC MANDATES its clergy be celibate.<br />3) Peter was married. Fail.<br />4) Paul was an apostle, not a presbuteros.<br /><br />Ben: <br /><br />1) From the Catholic Encyclopedia:<br /><br />“St. Timothy has been regarded by some as the "angel of the church of Ephesus", Apoc., ii, 1-17.... Timothy, <i>who was unmarried,</i> continued <i>Bishop</i> of Ephesus until, when he was over eighty years of age, he was mortally beaten by the pagans.”<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow"> Epistles to Timothy and Titus<br /></a><br /><br />2) Did Paul chose celibacy of his free-will, or was he first given the gift of celibacy? Was it not God’s will rather than Paul’s choice? Or better, was it not both i.e., grace and free-will?<br /><br />3) Peter was married. So? <br /><br />From Wikipedia - Clerical Celibacy:<br /><br />“I Corinthians 9:5 is sometimes cited by those opposed to celibacy, as the verse is often rendered as referring to the Apostles carrying "wives" with them. However, the Greek word for "wife" is the same word for "woman". The Early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine state the Greek word is ambiguous and the women in I Corinthians 9:5 were women ministering to the Apostles as women ministered to Christ (cf. Luke 8:1–3), and were not wives.[46] They even went as far as to assert they left their "offices of marriage" to follow Christ and to preach.[47]”Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-90614748526330209832010-05-26T15:22:46.152-04:002010-05-26T15:22:46.152-04:00Matt, I'm a former cult member (Worldwide Chur...Matt, I'm a former cult member (Worldwide Church of God),so I'm pretty familiar with what cultic behavior is and isn't. I'm also a man who has several friends and loved ones who suffer from mental illnesses, so I know what goes down in that area too. <br /><br />"you have no case." No, I've got a pretty good case. The description of the way Cal & Co. struck their noses into everybody's personal business is classic control freak behavior, which usually springs from the narcisstic disover or obsessive-compulsive disorder. nobody in his right mind would be overly concerned about what type of hose someone was wearing, what name someone else's child should have, and have a spy system that would snoop on families to insure things were being done according to Cal. As for you claiming I'm slandering poor ol' Jean, I can only wonder what kind of theology can support or drive this kind of behavior.<br /><br />As for how the Catholic Church offically describe Calvinism, the Concil of Trent said those who espoused the ideas of the "reformation" were anathema. That would make them, wheather they were formally labeled or not, schmatics or heretics. I hope this clarifies things for you.Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81624603137992007592010-05-26T13:25:37.247-04:002010-05-26T13:25:37.247-04:00scotju, unless you're prepared to make a case ...scotju, unless you're prepared to make a case from the criteria listed in the DSM, you have no case. As it stands, you are just slandering Calvin to dismiss his theology without engaging it.<br /><br /><i>Interestingly enough, one description of NPD that I read said,"Often become cult leaders". Why am I not surprised?</i><br /><br />Is that how Reformed Protestantism is officially described by your denomination? As a cult with Calvin as its leader?Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65394623038148694062010-05-26T12:17:35.950-04:002010-05-26T12:17:35.950-04:00Ben M, your description of Calvin's desire to ...Ben M, your description of Calvin's desire to know and control is a classic description of narcisstic personality disorder aka control freak. Interestingly enough, one description of NPD that I read said,"Often become cult leaders". Why am I not surprised?Steve "scotju" Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864544146213840928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59821510928429150062010-05-26T11:21:57.186-04:002010-05-26T11:21:57.186-04:00Ben M, I never said that I was a Calvinist nore do...Ben M, I never said that I was a Calvinist nore do I see Calvinist leaders writings as you would see papal encyclicals. People made mistakes, including Protestants and the RCC.<br /><br />Nice change of topic btw Ben M. You and Matthew still haven't addressed the Bible passage. Until then, your reply didn't have anything to do with the topic.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60192516867019240312010-05-26T07:28:23.470-04:002010-05-26T07:28:23.470-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50369248210311695822010-05-26T06:49:09.632-04:002010-05-26T06:49:09.632-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58618068727555981442010-05-26T02:12:14.872-04:002010-05-26T02:12:14.872-04:00I said: "That passage [1 Tim 4:3-5] not only ...I said: "That passage [1 Tim 4:3-5] not only covers a mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite but it also covers abstaining from red meat on fridays during Lent."<br /><br />Matthew said: "No it does not."<br /><br />This made me lol. So much for just reading something for what it says. Let me show you a little bit more from the passage I gave:<br /><br />The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and <b>follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.</b> Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They <b>forbid people to marry</b> and <b>order them to abstain from certain foods</b>, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:1-5)<br /><br />I take it then Matthew that you just ignore what the Bible says when it comes to priestly celibacy, correct? Because there is no reason whatsoever to impose a rule on the priests when the Bible gives a very clear position as to whether church leaders can be married or not. It's voluntary.<br /><br />Well, I guess you have no choice but to argue with me over this. I mean, you could agree with me but then you would have to disagree with your church. This is why I try to show RC's what the Bible says. Because maybe, just maybe, the Holy Spirit will show them that they can trust the Bible. You have the right to read it for what it says. There's no need to read anything into it.<br /><br />God Bless you Matthewzipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74421140339543650382010-05-25T19:36:44.070-04:002010-05-25T19:36:44.070-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34681293459881594122010-05-25T13:52:31.611-04:002010-05-25T13:52:31.611-04:00Hi Matthew,
You write:
"This gives a perfect...Hi Matthew,<br /><br />You write:<br />"This gives a perfect example of a vow of celibacy that is made for the rest of one's life. I am not reading into Scripture, you are refuse to see clear examples of voluntary vows of celibacy."<br /><br />Matthew, I have no quarrel with the idea that vows can be taken. If I must remind you, the topic is on celibacy of the priesthood, and whether the scriptures impose a vow onto that. Tis a big subject though because for you to succeed you would have to fist show the Roman Rite of priesthood from the scriptures since you have been using the scriptures to make your argument. And again, the subject is the celibacy of the Roman priesthood, and how the Church forbids marriage in that account. It isn't if there are vows one could take. A person could take any vow, but that doesn't mean the vow is binding on all. Stay focused on the actual argument and try not to divert from it if you are able, please.<br />Ok lets once more see what this says:<br />Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."<br /><br />1) nothing about a priesthood is said. That is you forcing that idea upon it.<br /><br />2)"You who have followed me..." Where is the reference to the priesthood. Perhaps you need to establish the context in which this was spoken, as that might help you out. You who have followed is speaking to a wide range. If you are taking this verse to use in support of a celibate priesthood, you need to establish that it is specifically referencing the priesthood of the Roman Rite since they are the ones for the most part who forbid marriage.<br /><br />3) Notice that it says that to those who leave their children. Having children doesn't equate to a celibate lifestyle. Regardless it say to those who leave children. Following your logic it would then be perfectly fine to abandon a child. <br /><br />4) Notice what it says about leaving ones parents. Following your logic there is a contradiction created since we are told by the apostle Paul that to abandon ones parents is worse than what an unbeliever would do.<br /><br />Take some time and learn about how 1st century Jewish teachers spoke and taught. That may help you on future endevors. Also try to stick with what the actual argument is and what it isn't. The argument has to do with the Roman Rite forbiding someone to get married. So far you haven't touched that argument. What you have done is try to force your idea on passages that have nothing to do with the Roman priesthood and how they must deny marriage to the priests.<br /><br />Like I said though, this is a huge subject with many assumptions, one being the very idea of the priesthood as conceived under the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite can't be the end all nor the best since other Rites do permit their priests to marry, or stated the other way around, there are other Rites that don't forbid their priests to get married. In short, the Roman Rite doesn't trump all, nor should it even be considered the best expression of it's clergy since there are other so called valid Rites. Perhaps you guys should take their lead?Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45728938079905104972010-05-25T13:15:08.708-04:002010-05-25T13:15:08.708-04:00"What it does not do is make the vow binding ..."What it does not do is make the vow binding on all who would serve in that compasity. In that you have erred."<br /><br />No I have not erred. Once one had made a lifetime vow, that is exactly what it is, and there are examples in Scripture of people making that type of vow. <br /><br />Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."<br /><br />This gives a perfect example of a vow of celibacy that is made for the rest of one's life. I am not reading into Scripture, you are refuse to see clear examples of voluntary vows of celibacy.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85677814045176436742010-05-25T13:09:46.470-04:002010-05-25T13:09:46.470-04:00Hi Matthew,
You write:
"The Scriptures tell ...Hi Matthew,<br /><br />You write:<br />"The Scriptures tell us that one can voluntarily make a vow celibacy, and that it is good to do for those that can. This is what the priest does in the Latin Rite Church, baring a few exceptions. It is not reading into the texts, but the text of Sacred Scripture gives clear examples for this type of vow."<br /><br />Correct, the scriptures talk about a voluntary vow. What it does not do is make the vow binding on all who would serve in that compasity. In that you have erred. Just as you have read your theology into the text. Where does it teach the Roman Rites view of Priestly celibacy? The answer is nowhere as has been pointed out to you by someone else giving scripture. Peter led a wife for example. Doesn't sound like he had taken a vow. It is funny that you would have quoted Matthew 19. Notice that it says"... And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake..." To leave a wife you have to have one. But you used this verse as part of your argument. Since you have done so, notice that it talks about children. Is Jesus speaking literally about abandoning a wife or a child? Or is He simply using a Jewish way of speaking? Where in this verse is there any application to a celibate priesthood. If they had a wife or children, they certainly weren't being celibate. The problem is that you are taking a verse and applying it to the priesthood, which leaves you begging the question. How do you know Jesus is talking about a celibate priesthood here? Is He only referencing them (the celibate priests)? You also mentioned 1Cor. 7. Yet how does that apply strictly to a celibate priesthood when Paul was addressing the church? That is simply you forcing your ideas onto the text.Yes Paul said that it would be good if others were like him, but because of immorality. But he says to take a wife. He is giving practical instruction. There in nothing implicit of a celibate priesthood there.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-87247798961674588322010-05-25T12:49:38.431-04:002010-05-25T12:49:38.431-04:00"From reading your posts, I have yet to see w..."From reading your posts, I have yet to see where you have made this anything beyond assertion. Can you point out just where the scriptures you quoted give ***FULL*** support to the position you are affirming? If you can't I would be forced to say you are taking them out of context and forcing your ideas upon them."<br /><br />The Scriptures tell us that one can voluntarily make a vow celibacy, and that it is good to do for those that can. This is what the priest does in the Latin Rite Church, baring a few exceptions. It is not reading into the texts, but the text of Sacred Scripture gives clear examples for this type of vow.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.com