A vow of celibacy

[miamited]

It has nothing to do with what God wants. It has to do with the CC trying to teach it's lay persons to have some kind of control over their appetites - literally.

Hi GodsGrace

Really? Is that what they told you was the reason for not eating meat on Friday? That they just thought it was a good idea to try and teach people to control their appetites? OOOOOkay.

I wouldn't say doctrines of demons!
That's going a bit too far.

I'm just quoting what God's word says and applying it to pretty much the only group that is tied in some way to the practice of faith in that God. Paul wrote to Timothy, and wrote the very issues that we are talking about and says that those very issues are doctrines of demons. You can argue Paul about it when you meet him.
Oh, so you see the problem, but what? It's ok because the leadership of the group says it's ok. OOOOOOkay. That would likely have been the response of the Jews before Jesus confronted them about their wicked practices.

And no, I'm not going to list all of the 'unscriptural' practices of that body of faith. I'm sure you've heard them all before and I'm not interested in spending a lot of time trying to teach against them. Especially to someone who quite obviously doesn't see it as a problem, even though they do see the issue, and even say it's a problem.

The problem is that they added some teachings to the written word.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi GodsGrace

Look, I had a dear friend who was a sinner. She was a sinner through and through, just as I am. She 'loved' the Catholic Church and was raised under their teachings. She lived with a man and conceived two children. Her 'church' would not baptize her children, because they were born in sin. This is a true, factual story. It literally broke her heart. But then her oldest son was killed in a vehicle accident and she was tormented the rest of her life that her son hadn't been baptized and wouldn't be in heaven. Because she was taught that without the baptism of the organization to which she belonged, no one gets into heaven.

Now, I'm not posting this account to debate whether or not the boy will be in heaven. I'm posting it to show how deep the doctrine of demons runs in that organization and is handed off as 'the truth of God'.

Next account. My own father, after 25 years of marriage, divorced my mother because he had found a new love in his then secretary WHO WAS MY AGE!!!! He was literally having relations with a girl who could have been his daughter. But that's not the issue. The secretary was a 'good Catholic girl'. Let that sink in for a bit. After the divorce she would not marry my father, being of course a 'good Catholic girl' unless the previous marriage could be annulled which would make it just fine and dandy in God's sight, according to what she had been taught, with all that she had done and was doing.

Well, my dad paid a boatload of money, and the 25 year marriage in which four children had been born, was then made as if to have never existed. Now, technically that makes myself and all my siblings bastards in the eyes of that organization because now we, too were just like my friend's children, born outside of marriage.

You're free to see it as you will, but no, I don't think the claim of 'doctrines of demons' is going too far.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GodsGrace

Look, I had a dear friend who was a sinner. She was a sinner through and through, just as I am. She 'loved' the Catholic Church and was raised under their teachings. She lived with a man and conceived two children. Her 'church' would not baptize her children, because they were born in sin.

The above is incorrect church behavior on the part of her parish priest.
The mother and father do not have to be married for a baby to be baptized.
The GODPARENTS must be married - or I should say not living together - in order to be able to participate in the celebration which denies satan's works and teachings, one of which is that it's OK for persons to live together sans marriage.

She should have checked with her Bishop.
It's a shame Catholics only use the church when they need it.
She should have been aware of her churche's teaching, just as you are of yours.

This is a true, factual story. It literally broke her heart. But then her oldest son was killed in a vehicle accident and she was tormented the rest of her life that her son hadn't been baptized and wouldn't be in heaven. Because she was taught that without the baptism of the organization to which she belonged, no one gets into heaven.

The above is nonsense.

Believers who die before their baptism, and who are sorry for their sins, are assured of their salvation.
If he was not a believer, then you know the same answer I know.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

A catechumen is just someone who wans to be Catholic.
If they want to be Catholic it means they are born again.

If your friend is right, EVERYONE that is not Catholic is going straight to hell.
Something the CC absolutely does not believe.

Now, I'm not posting this account to debate whether or not the boy will be in heaven. I'm posting it to show how deep the doctrine of demons runs in that organization and is handed off as 'the truth of God'.

There are no doctrines of demons.
Besides the fact that you're breaking TOS rules right now.
We are not allowed to denegrade any denomination.
You can believe what you will, but you really can't state that on this Forum.

You may wish to discuss what doctrines you believe are INCORRECT.
Maybe in the Catholic Forum if the OP thinks we're going too deep into derailing the thread.

Next account. My own father, after 25 years of marriage, divorced my mother because he had found a new love in his then secretary WHO WAS MY AGE!!!! He was literally having relations with a girl who could have been his daughter. But that's not the issue. The secretary was a 'good Catholic girl'. Let that sink in for a bit. After the divorce she would not marry my father, being of course a 'good Catholic girl' unless the previous marriage could be annulled which would make it just fine and dandy in God's sight, according to what she had been taught, with all that she had done and was doing.

I could address the above too but it would be pretty long.
A good Catholic girl...
No one is good but our Father in heaven.

Well, my dad paid a boatload of money, and the 25 year marriage in which four children had been born, was then made as if to have never existed. Now, technically that makes myself and all my siblings bastards in the eyes of that organization because now we, too were just like my friend's children, born outside of marriage.

Oh my goodness Ted.
What will you say next??

Under some circumstances an annulment can be granted.
Lawyers of the CC, which are Canon Lawyers and require just as much study as a lay atty, do cost money.
I doubt it cost a boatload of money. The church tries to keep the cost down...but there is a cost.

People shouldn't be getting divorced unless there's a good reason.
Unfaithfulness on the part of your father was grounds for divorce.
No annulment was necessary.

You're free to see it as you will, but no, I don't think the claim of 'doctrines of demons' is going too far.

God bless,
Ted

I see things as they are.
You're telling me personal stories that are wrong from the get-go.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GodsGrace

Really? Is that what they told you was the reason for not eating meat on Friday? That they just thought it was a good idea to try and teach people to control their appetites? OOOOOkay.

I'm just quoting what God's word says and applying it to pretty much the only group that is tied in some way to the practice of faith in that God. Paul wrote to Timothy, and wrote the very issues that we are talking about and says that those very issues are doctrines of demons. You can argue Paul about it when you meet him.

Oh, so you see the problem, but what? It's ok because the leadership of the group says it's ok. OOOOOOkay. That would likely have been the response of the Jews before Jesus confronted them about their wicked practices.

And no, I'm not going to list all of the 'unscriptural' practices of that body of faith. I'm sure you've heard them all before and I'm not interested in spending a lot of time trying to teach against them. Especially to someone who quite obviously doesn't see it as a problem, even though they do see the issue, and even say it's a problem.


God bless,
Ted

I see hatred in the above post toward Christians just like you are.
We should be celebrating what we share, not putting down denominations because:

A. We do not agree with them. I don't agree with something or other of all denominations, but they're still my brothers in Christ.

B. All your hated is based on incorrect information.


That's pretty much what I have to say.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I see hatred in the above post toward Christians just like you are.
We should be celebrating what we share, not putting down denominations because:

A. We do not agree with them. I don't agree with something or other of all denominations, but they're still my brothers in Christ.

B. All your hated is based on incorrect information.


That's pretty much what I have to say.

We always have our differences, every self identified Christian has their own ideas, but the way I see it, you put all the traditions, doctrines and practices aside, just ask them these one simple question as a litmus test: is marriage between a man and a woman? If the answer is not an instant, resounding yes, then this is a Christian in name only, no matter what credential or label they carry.

 

[miamited]

We always have our differences, every self identified Christian has their own ideas, but the way I see it, you put all the traditions, doctrines and practices aside, just ask them these one simple question as a litmus test: is marriage between a man and a woman? If the answer is not an instant, resounding yes, then this is a Christian in name only, no matter what credential or label they carry.

Hi Carry_Your_Name

I realize that you aren't directing your post to me, but I just feel led to say that's a pretty weak test. There are a lot of CINOs that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Right.
And I knew there was an odd reason for it too.
Thanks!

Yeah, although Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven, the Catholic church's primary concern was political first and foremost, not theological.

Also, "USE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSTS" would only widen existing divisions. There's always confirmation bias in matters like this, singles will back their stance with verses that support singleness, married will back their stance with verses that support marriage. Me and Tenchi have had an intense debate on whether Christians should seek marriage, and we ended up agreeing to disagree.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

I realize that you aren't directing your post to me, but I just feel led to say that's a pretty weak test. There are a lot of CINOs that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

God bless,
Ted

Yes, but this is considered "hate speech" in today's political climate, you know how much trouble it would cost you if you publicly declare and teach this.

 

[miamited]

Yes, but this is considered "hate speech" in today's political climate, you know how much trouble it would cost you if you publicly declare and teach this.

Hi Carry_Your_Name

Teach what? I mean, you're the one saying that some good test of who are 'real' christians is to ask them if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just responded that I didn't think that was a particularly good test. I don't know what it is that you're referring to teaching.

As far as believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe that there are a lot of people out there teaching or saying that. I'm missing your point.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

Teach what? I mean, you're the one saying that some good test of who are 'real' christians is to ask them if they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just responded that I didn't think that was a particularly good test. I don't know what it is that you're referring to teaching.

As far as believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe that there are a lot of people out there teaching or saying that. I'm missing your point.

God bless,
Ted

It is a good test because, as I said, teaching "marriage between a man and a woman" is considered hate speech against homosexuals, even swingers who have multiple partners, you may be maligned, censored, even arrested for your belief in traditional marriage.

If you don't like this, OK, here's another one: do you bless modern state of Israel? Has the gentile church replaced Israel? If the answer is not an instant, resounding yes and no, then this is a Christian in name only.

 

[miamited]

although Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven,

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

What?????? Jesus never taught any such thing. It was Paul that spoke about the issue of one not marrying if they could honor celibacy. And it had nothing to do with anyone being 'devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven'. It was also Paul who wrote about who wrote the instructions and godly requirements for fellowship leaders and he clearly says that they must be the husband of one wife.

Could you please provide me with the Scripture reference where Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

It is a good test because, as I said, teaching "marriage between a man and a woman" is considered hate speech against homosexuals, even swingers who have multiple partners, you may be maligned, censored, even arrested for your belief in traditional marriage.

If you don't like this, OK, here's another one: do you bless modern state of Israel? Has the gentile church replaced Israel? If the answer is not an instant, resounding yes and no, then this is a Christian in name only.

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

Alright. Well, I guess if you say so then it must be true. Personally, I think there are a number of questions that you could ask those aligned with the fellowship of God's people that would give an indication that they aren't in line with God's will for His children. But hey, if you believe it, it must be true.

Any luck on finding those references from the Scriptures where Jesus said what you're also claiming he said about this issue? "Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven,..."

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

What?????? Jesus never taught any such thing. It was Paul that spoke about the issue of one not marrying if they could honor celibacy. And it had nothing to do with anyone being 'devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven'. It was also Paul who wrote about who wrote the instructions and godly requirements for fellowship leaders and he clearly says that they must be the husband of one wife.

Could you please provide me with the Scripture reference where Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven.

God bless,
Ted

“All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matt. 19:11-12)

 

[miamited]

“All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matt. 19:11-12)

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

Yes, Jesus said that there were eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, but allowed that only those who could accept should accept it. I don't see that as teaching that Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven. In fact, per your reference, he speaks of there being a number of eunuchs, but not that all of them were so because they were devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven.

And again, Paul writes that a pastor/teacher should be the husband of one wife. Did Paul not understand Jesus' teaching? Or is it possible that you've taken the wrong intent from Jesus' words as far as it having anything to do with the celibacy of the priesthood. I mean, that has never been the case in all of Judaism. A lot of the priests were married. In fact, I think it may have been a requirement for a priest to be so, but I'd have to check that. I know that I heard it said once, but like I say, I've never actually checked it out.

We do know for a fact that John the baptist's father, who was a priest who served in the temple at his appointed time, was married. Had a wife and had children, i.e., John the Baptist.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

Yes, Jesus said that there were eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, but allowed that only those who could accept should accept it. I don't see that as teaching that Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven. In fact, per your reference, he speaks of there being a number of eunuchs, but not that all of them were so because they were devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven.

And again, Paul writes that a pastor/teacher should be the husband of one wife. Did Paul not understand Jesus' teaching? Or is it possible that you've taken the wrong intent from Jesus' words as far as it having anything to do with the celibacy of the priesthood. I mean, that has never been the case in all of Judaism. A lot of the priests were married. In fact, I think it may have been a requirement for a priest to be so, but I'd have to check that. I know that I heard it said once, but like I say, I've never actually checked it out.

We do know for a fact that John the baptist's father, who was a priest who served in the temple at his appointed time, was married. Had a wife and had children, i.e., John the Baptist.

God bless,
Ted

You do understand that "eunuch" in that historical context was a euphemism for all kinds of single men, right? Not just constrated court officials in charge of the king's harem? Marriage and children are the norm and a blessing, as we're all biologically hardwired to procreate, no one naturally wanna die alone. Voluntarily forsaking all of these personal happiness, the joy of sex, romance and family life to serve God is a hard decision, not everyone can take that, therefore "only those who could accept should accept it". Jesus didn't "allow" or "forbid" anything, he said this in response to the disciples' conclusion in the previous verse: "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Paul, in 1 Cor. 7 echoed this teaching. Of course he didn't say that clergies must be celibate. In the historical context where temple prostitutes were everywhere in Corinth, marriage contained sexual desire within the boundaries set by God. Nonetheless, Paul gave his advice - singleness is preferred, marriage is a distraction. Marriage is merely permitted, not encouraged or promoted, there's a big difference. Likewise, this was a response to the Corinthian church's extreme reaction to his teaching in the previous chapter - if sex with prostitute is so evil, it's sinning against our own body and defiling God's body temple, then we'd better not touch any woman at all (1 Cor. 7:1).

I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor. 7:8-9)

But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. (1 Cor. 7:32-35)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

Yes, Jesus said that there were eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, but allowed that only those who could accept should accept it. I don't see that as teaching that Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven. In fact, per your reference, he speaks of there being a number of eunuchs, but not that all of them were so because they were devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven.

And again, Paul writes that a pastor/teacher should be the husband of one wife. Did Paul not understand Jesus' teaching? Or is it possible that you've taken the wrong intent from Jesus' words as far as it having anything to do with the celibacy of the priesthood. I mean, that has never been the case in all of Judaism. A lot of the priests were married. In fact, I think it may have been a requirement for a priest to be so, but I'd have to check that. I know that I heard it said once, but like I say, I've never actually checked it out.

We do know for a fact that John the baptist's father, who was a priest who served in the temple at his appointed time, was married. Had a wife and had children, i.e., John the Baptist.

God bless,
Ted

Look, as we've previously agreed upon, we should avoid taking extreme views, in this case, the idea that the Scripture forbids marriage altogether or mandates marriage for everyone. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 7 could be summarized as "keep your marital status quo." You don't have to divorce if you're married, you don't have to marry if you're single, you can serve God single or married, and single is preferred as there would be less distraction and burden.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

I realize that you aren't directing your post to me, but I just feel led to say that's a pretty weak test. There are a lot of CINOs that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

God bless,
Ted

Ted,
Anyone can reply to any post.

What's a CINO?
Christian in name only?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Ted,
Anyone can reply to any post.

What's a CINO?
Christian in name only?

Yes, of course. To use a more biblical term, lukewarm Laodiceans.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah, although Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift for those who are devoted to the ministry for the kingdom of heaven, the Catholic church's primary concern was political first and foremost, not theological.

Also, "USE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSTS" would only widen existing divisions. There's always confirmation bias in matters like this, singles will back their stance with verses that support singleness, married will back their stance with verses that support marriage. Me and Tenchi have had an intense debate on whether Christians should seek marriage, and we ended up agreeing to disagree.

Hi Carry,
Your first paragraph is correct...

Re your second paragraph:

This is not Christian Talk and Advice.
This is the Theology Forum where serious matters are discussed and where persona opinion is not supposed to be discussed unless it could be shown to be in scripture somehow or somewhere.

Tenchi and yourself were having a decent conversation about marriage and I didn't want to inturrupt it.

However, in Theology, scripture really is a requirement although when a conversation is free-flowing we sometimes let it go.

Theology - The study of God.
(not of personal opinions).

PS I know you were both basing your beliefs on the bible.

Just to explain, also for anyone reading along.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, of course. To use a more biblical term, lukewarm Laodiceans.

I think it's worse than that!