Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
oldiesman

"The Vatican is a Bathhouse; they are all f--s"

Recommended Posts

On 8/25/2019 at 6:25 PM, socks said:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

 

 

And worth a read this one - 

ARTICLE 9
Paragraph 4. Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

-----------------------------------------------

I was raised RC, and had 10 years of RC education and experience, and direct involvement so I learned the Catechism many times over. But even today I would say that aside from any really theological considerations, if you read the Church's position on itself and who and what it thinks it is (and the above links are just a small part of it) 

You can understand why it's a completely SNAFU and very much FUBAR. 

I went through all of this when I was a kid, and at the tender age of 10 was put on notice I was going to get kicked out for being a "Communist". Because I had a lot of questions, y'know, the dangerous kind 10 year olds have. That was before EVERY ONE of the priests and nuns who taught me and had authority over me quit, left their vows and vocation and went off to get married or become nurses or do whatever it was they felt was worthy of their time, but not before they'd manipulated as many young minds as they could to mold to the Catholic Way, which in at least one instance included knowledge of what one priest was .... doing in his spare time. 

I love people, lotsa Catholics. Know lots of them, and all of them are disgusted with their church's behavior and attitude. Some of them go to church services too but I'll guaran-eff-ing-tee they don't take their grand kids without close supervision. 'S just the way it is, unfortunately. 

The doctrine however is completely whack. Many of the simplest tenets of Christ and what he taught are mangled and munched beyond recognition. This isn't an idle criticism, it's a response to how RC's explain themselves, via the Catechism they use to do so. 

Thanks for that sharing socks.  I suppose I have the same attitude with Roman Catholicism as with TWI that the evil didn't negate the good.    I want to learn from people that have strong Roman Catholic faith one of them is Ann Barnhardt the other is Taylor Marshall and both have excellent podcasts that I've been listening to.    I go to a Catholic Bible study which has been only a reading of the Catholic Bible and commentary by us the readers.   What I try to do is get their Catholic perspective and not push the twi teachings on them (some of which I still believe even now.)   But I've seen that lots of stuff is similar; the pure faith in Christ is similar.    Love of God is similar.    The "gifts of the spirit" or "manifestations" are not really as some Catholics observe them and some do not.   But I want to get a book by Taylor Marshall called  "The Crucified Rabbi" .    I've read that he makes the case that the Catholic religion has its traditions, ceremonies and rituals in Judaism and fulfills the Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldies,

Do you still believe Jesus Christ is not God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Raf,

Not as much as I used to and no longer preach that.   I do believe that it's Jesus who will be deciding my eternal location but I don't know if that makes him "God"; certainly Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In twi, I feel that Jesus was seriously de-emphasized,  in order to emphasize people living now (us, but mostly vpw.)   Even a temporal, earthly emperor would get more respect and notice than was given to him.     I mean, even referring to him as "Lord" didn't mean much, because few people ever thought about what it meant to HAVE a "lord."    I once replied to some trinitarians who seemed baffled about how one could have a "lord" who was not their "god."     I said that to have Jesus as my lord meant that I'd sworn fealty to him.   Even over the internet, I could almost swear I'd heard little light-bulbs going on over people's heads.   THAT they understood.

For a lot of twi and ex-twi people who claim adherence to the twi system,  it's nothing at all like "swearing fealty to Jesus" or anything along those lines.   Doing so takes away from the loyalty to some earthly leader who usurped Jesus' rightful place in the life of a Christian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WordWolf said:

In twi, I feel that Jesus was seriously de-emphasized,  in order to emphasize people living now (us, but mostly vpw.)   Even a temporal, earthly emperor would get more respect and notice than was given to him.     I mean, even referring to him as "Lord" didn't mean much, because few people ever thought about what it meant to HAVE a "lord."    I once replied to some trinitarians who seemed baffled about how one could have a "lord" who was not their "god."     I said that to have Jesus as my lord meant that I'd sworn fealty to him.   Even over the internet, I could almost swear I'd heard little light-bulbs going on over people's heads.   THAT they understood.

For a lot of twi and ex-twi people who claim adherence to the twi system,  it's nothing at all like "swearing fealty to Jesus" or anything along those lines.   Doing so takes away from the loyalty to some earthly leader who usurped Jesus' rightful place in the life of a Christian.

 

There should be no doctrine or teaching which elevates some people at the expense of other legitimate followers of Jesus Christ.  Only God the Father and his Son Jesus are to be exalted.  Yet today we have false doctrines such as the pope being the Vicar of Christ, or that by our minds renewed to God's word we take the place of the absent Christ, as was taught in the denomination I used to associate with (TWI).  He is surely not absent nor is anyone, regardless of which denomination he heads, be it big or small, the head of the body of believers.  The only head of the body of believers is seated at God’s right hand in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1).  It seems the Church, as made up of all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation, is continually in jeopardy of making its leaders as lords and even worse, mediators between God and men, when in fact, there is but one God and only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (see 1 Timothy 2:5).

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

KJV

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

In twi, I feel that Jesus was seriously de-emphasized,  in order to emphasize people living now (us, but mostly vpw.)   Even a temporal, earthly emperor would get more respect and notice than was given to him.     I mean, even referring to him as "Lord" didn't mean much, because few people ever thought about what it meant to HAVE a "lord."    I once replied to some trinitarians who seemed baffled about how one could have a "lord" who was not their "god."     I said that to have Jesus as my lord meant that I'd sworn fealty to him.   Even over the internet, I could almost swear I'd heard little light-bulbs going on over people's heads.   THAT they understood.

For a lot of twi and ex-twi people who claim adherence to the twi system,  it's nothing at all like "swearing fealty to Jesus" or anything along those lines.   Doing so takes away from the loyalty to some earthly leader who usurped Jesus' rightful place in the life of a Christian.

 

Thanks WordWolf.   Looking back I think that "swearing fealty to Jesus" in twi exactly meant swearing your allegience to the twi ministry because we all were so engrained to think that "this is God's ministry" "the ministry that represents God" and so forth so our dedication had to be to the ministry.   There was no other way to think.  I agree that Jesus was severely de-emphasized, most particularly his sufferings.    We weren't allowed to dwell on looking and gazing at the cross, let alone a crucifix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

There should be no doctrine or teaching which elevates some people at the expense of other legitimate followers of Jesus Christ.  Only God the Father and his Son Jesus are to be exalted.  Yet today we have false doctrines such as the pope being the Vicar of Christ, or that by our minds renewed to God's word we take the place of the absent Christ, as was taught in the denomination I used to associate with (TWI).  He is surely not absent nor is anyone, regardless of which denomination he heads, be it big or small, the head of the body of believers.  The only head of the body of believers is seated at God’s right hand in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1).  It seems the Church, as made up of all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation, is continually in jeopardy of making its leaders as lords and even worse, mediators between God and men, when in fact, there is but one God and only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (see 1 Timothy 2:5).

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

KJV

Thanks Mark.   I have seen Catholics bow down and kiss the ring of a Bishop (who according to Catholics would be a modern-day Apostle).   It felt wierd to see that.    They might have done something like that in the first century with Peter and Paul, etc.   I don't know.   But I ask myself "are they doing it to worship the Bishop or because they love God and want to show respect to his body the church and what Christ put in place."     Its sort of the same respect we showed VPW when he was around... but with Catholics it is even worse (more pronounced) this "worship" or earthly respect and reverence to Popes, Bishops and so forth.    But it that evil?   I don't know.    It is certainly tradition and ceremony.    Guess it depends of what's in the heart of the person doing it.    When I talk to some of these people afterwards its clear they love God and are there for that.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Thanks Mark.   I have seen Catholics bow down and kiss the ring of a Bishop (who according to Catholics would be a modern-day Apostle).   It felt wierd to see that.    They might have done something like that in the first century with Peter and Paul, etc.   I don't know.   But I ask myself "are they doing it to worship the Bishop or because they love God and want to show respect to his body the church and what Christ put in place."     Its sort of the same respect we showed VPW when he was around... but with Catholics it is even worse (more pronounced) this "worship" or earthly respect and reverence to Popes, Bishops and so forth.    But it that evil?   I don't know.    It is certainly tradition and ceremony.    Guess it depends of what's in the heart of the person doing it.    When I talk to some of these people afterwards its clear they love God and are there for that.   

I would and will not worship them like they are God or Jesus Christ his only begotten son. Instead I might want to gently pet them on the shoulder like they are dogs that hopefully wag their tails. I really love dogs, but do not worship them. I actually did this at a Greek Orthodox church to two ministers when I was in a line with other people. This very old denomination historically and many years ago separated itself from the Roman Catholic church. As I recall others kissed the hand and ring of the two minsters. I instead petted them both on the shoulder. I also let them know that if they wanted to pet me that they could. After I did this these two ministers were friendly with me. I have helped educate them from the bible by sending  them and other ministers links to biblical articles that I have written.  As an example of the reality that I love dogs, when I was a child before the age of five, my family or parents had a house with a swimming pool. I would sometimes walk around and when I walked around near the swimming pool our family German Shepherd dog would bark to my parents and position himself between me and the pool  when I walked around near the pool. My mother has told me this.and even told me this two days ago. This helpful dog knew that if I slipped and fell in the pool, that I could drown and die because this was when I was very young and did not know yet how to swim. I wonder if this dog saved my life??? The dog was at least helpful with my family feeding the dog and providing water to drink. I now consider this German Shepherd dog in the "Doggie Hall of Fame".  Perhaps similar to a star professional athlete.  

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Thanks WordWolf.   Looking back I think that "swearing fealty to Jesus" in twi exactly meant swearing your allegience to the twi ministry because we all were so engrained to think that "this is God's ministry" "the ministry that represents God" and so forth so our dedication had to be to the ministry.   There was no other way to think.  I agree that Jesus was severely de-emphasized, most particularly his sufferings.    We weren't allowed to dwell on looking and gazing at the cross, let alone a crucifix.

The "swearing fealty" thing was my phrasing, not twi's.  It's a bit too literate for twi as a whole.  Perhaps if D@ve @rneson or someone like him was really a big part of twi, it would have been used (a founder of D&D/AD&D, he would have understood the concept just fine.)    In effect, for many twi'ers,  they acted as if their allegiance was sworn to twi, and it certainly was promoted that way by vpw and lcm-  with "salt covenants" and so on, and stressing how one had to live up to them NO MATTER WHAT and how repugnant others were who left after taking one.   For me, I was clear from Day One that my allegiance was to God and Jesus, and my allegiance to twi only reflected that-  and was subject to change if an even better ministry appeared somewhere.   (I said it, and I wrote it, more than once.)  So, for me, leaving wasn't as traumatic,  mentally, as it was for a lot of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

There should be no doctrine or teaching which elevates some people at the expense of other legitimate followers of Jesus Christ.  Only God the Father and his Son Jesus are to be exalted.  Yet today we have false doctrines such as the pope being the Vicar of Christ, or that by our minds renewed to God's word we take the place of the absent Christ, as was taught in the denomination I used to associate with (TWI).  He is surely not absent nor is anyone, regardless of which denomination he heads, be it big or small, the head of the body of believers.  The only head of the body of believers is seated at God’s right hand in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1).  It seems the Church, as made up of all believers in Jesus Christ regardless of denominational affiliation, is continually in jeopardy of making its leaders as lords and even worse, mediators between God and men, when in fact, there is but one God and only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (see 1 Timothy 2:5).

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

KJV

I agree, and I Timothy 2:5  really does clash with a lot of traditions as stated and as practiced.  

That having been said, it's rather shocking how little the current Pope relies on the "kiss my ring" stuff.  He was surprised when he got in a line to wait, and people offered to bump him to the front of a line because he's the Pope, and so on.   Frankly, I think he's better-qualified the more I see that sort of thing, and no, I don't think he's posturing, I think he really was standing in line and that was it, in his mind.

Then again, there's quite a few cardinals and bishops who dislike his manner.   Oldies, any chance whatsoever the laity can just have them tossed out and get some more humble leaders?  (Sadly, I think the answer is "no.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely not... the bowing down (and I mean all the way to the floor) and kissing of the ring came from the Catholics themselves and not from the Bishop.   What I did was shake his hand and say "God Bless You" and he seemed happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celibate - isn't that that new arthritis medication? 

I would say that the RC's have re worked the teaching of the New Testament to come up with their own piece of doctrine. The N.T. including the Gospels doesn't lead anyone to believe that the normal state of a male or female disciple of Christ is to not be married or to not have sex. It just doesn't. 

Jesus wasn't married, but He never needed to be. I suppose one could wrap some humor around the idea that He was tempted in all things including getting married...but resisted! But aside from that, we don't get any real inference from what He's recorded to have said that He taught that His followers shouldn't be married or have children. 

Reading Timothy and Titus it all reads as if married and family life is considered for those who want to have a role in caring and working with the other followers, the Church. 

Remember too, it's considered a "sacrifice", something that is being given up and denied. That being the case it may not be wrong or bad but we don't really know that in a way that would lend us to think it's a worthwhile practice, and is even discussed by Paul as something that if be done "for a time" but doesn't read as something normative. 

This link below gives some details. Here's an excerpt that deserves consideration. And now that the Church "owns" a loosely connected wad of several 100,000 acres of land and properties worldwide including it's own theocratically run country, I think it's somewhat less than generous of the current Pope to consider altering celibacy .....but that's another story...

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/23/why-catholic-priests-practise-celibacy

"The earliest written reference to celibacy comes from 305AD at the Spanish Council of Elvira, a local assembly of clergymen who met to discuss matters pertaining to the church. Canon 33 forbids clerics in the church—bishops, priests and deacons—from having sexual relations with their wives and from having children, though not from entering into marriage. It was not until ecumenical meetings of the Catholic Church at the First and Second Lateran councils in 1123 and 1139 that priests were explicitly forbidden from marrying. Eliminating the prospect of marriage had the added benefit of ensuring that children or wives of priests did not make claims on property acquired throughout a priest’s life, which thus could be retained by the church. It took centuries for the practice of celibacy to become widespread, but it eventually became the norm in the Western Catholic church."

 

Edited by socks
Let’s just say I know a guy… who knows a guy… who knows another guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, socks said:

Celibate - isn't that that new arthritis medication? 

I would say that the RC's have re worked the teaching of the New Testament to come up with their own piece of doctrine. The N.T. including the Gospels doesn't lead anyone to believe that the normal state of a male or female disciple of Christ is to not be married or to not have sex. It just doesn't. 

Jesus wasn't married, but He never needed to be. I suppose one could wrap some humor around the idea that He was tempted in all things including getting married...but resisted! But aside from that, we don't get any real inference from what He's recorded to have said that He taught that His followers shouldn't be married or have children. 

Reading Timothy and Titus it all reads as if married and family life is considered for those who want to have a role in caring and working with the other followers, the Church. 

Remember too, it's considered a "sacrifice", something that is being given up and denied. That being the case it may not be wrong or bad but we don't really know that in a way that would lend us to think it's a worthwhile practice, and is even discussed by Paul as something that if be done "for a time" but doesn't read as something normative. 

This link below gives some details. Here's an excerpt that deserves consideration. And now that the Church "owns" a loosely connected wad of several 100,000 acres of land and properties worldwide including it's own theocratically run country, I think it's somewhat less than generous of the current Pope to consider altering celibacy .....but that's another story...

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/23/why-catholic-priests-practise-celibacy

"The earliest written reference to celibacy comes from 305AD at the Spanish Council of Elvira, a local assembly of clergymen who met to discuss matters pertaining to the church. Canon 33 forbids clerics in the church—bishops, priests and deacons—from having sexual relations with their wives and from having children, though not from entering into marriage. It was not until ecumenical meetings of the Catholic Church at the First and Second Lateran councils in 1123 and 1139 that priests were explicitly forbidden from marrying. Eliminating the prospect of marriage had the added benefit of ensuring that children or wives of priests did not make claims on property acquired throughout a priest’s life, which thus could be retained by the church. It took centuries for the practice of celibacy to become widespread, but it eventually became the norm in the Western Catholic church."

 

Intriguing history, Socks. Thanks for sharing it. To me, the salient point in the article is in the final paragraph:

"Despite the decrees from the Middle Ages, celibacy is still a “discipline” of the church, which can be changed, rather than a “dogma”, or a divinely revealed truth from God which cannot be altered. As the world has changed, the Church has had a harder time recruiting priests. Numbers have been dropping: between 1970 and 2014 the world’s Catholic population grew from 654m to 1.23bn, while the number of priests declined from 420,000 to 414,000. Some prospective priests don’t want to choose between having a life with God and having a family. It is not inconceivable that the time will come again when they can have both."

Seems to me that a lot of the social sickness in the RC church could be mitigated if they change the "discipline".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I heartily agree that the RCC's problems largely stem from their celibacy "discipline",  I'm dubious that the subject NEVER came up before 305 AD, as that writer claimed.

I Corinthians 7 seems to discuss it.      There's verses on being married, and intimacy between spouses being expected and recommended for those with spouses.   There's something on not getting out of a marriage.   There also seems verses on celibacy- unless I misunderstand them. 

1 Corinthians 7 King James Version (KJV)

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Corinthians 7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Teaching on Marriage

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife.

12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that [k]condition in which he was called.

21 Were you called while a slave? [l]Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather [m]do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have [q]trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.

32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [s]her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, [t]being under no constraint, but has authority [u]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband [v]is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for hijacking the thread, but whether I'm right or not, we should address the subject of whether or not the Bible thinks celibacy is a bad idea, and I think all the relevant verses are here.     Here's how I see these, please correct me as needed.....

==============================================

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

[No fooling around.  Get married instead, and both of you are responsible to relate conjugally with each other.]

  Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7

[If you take a break, let it be a brief one and then resume conjugal relations, and that's Paul's best idea.]

[c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

 

[Is Paul suggesting here that he's not married?  It seems so to me, and we never see signs that he was married.  (Then again, Peter was married and only one verse mentions that.)]

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Sure looks like he's unmarried NOW.   Paul even says here that it's good to remain unmarried if you're not married-  but if you can't remain celibate, then marry instead.]

10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not [d]leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [e]divorce his wife.

12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

[If you're married, stay married.]

25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who [n]by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the [o]present distress, that it is good for a man [p]to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

 

[Still looks like he's saying that it's good to be single (and celibate), and good to marry (and not be celibate.) ]

 

So, I don't see this "you HAVE to be celibate to serve God" thing and think that came later.  (Seriously, this "don't have relations with your spouse" thing completely contradicts I Corinthians 7.)     

 

I'm aware, however, that someone can read a few verses, take them out of the context of the chapter, and whip up some odd new doctrine.][/b]

 

32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [r]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rocky said:

Intriguing history, Socks. Thanks for sharing it. To me, the salient point in the article is in the final paragraph:

"Despite the decrees from the Middle Ages, celibacy is still a “discipline” of the church, which can be changed, rather than a “dogma”, or a divinely revealed truth from God which cannot be altered. As the world has changed, the Church has had a harder time recruiting priests. Numbers have been dropping: between 1970 and 2014 the world’s Catholic population grew from 654m to 1.23bn, while the number of priests declined from 420,000 to 414,000. Some prospective priests don’t want to choose between having a life with God and having a family. It is not inconceivable that the time will come again when they can have both."

Seems to me that a lot of the social sickness in the RC church could be mitigated if they change the "discipline".

 

Me three, Rocky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WordWolf said:

While I heartily agree that the RCC's problems largely stem from their celibacy "discipline",  I'm dubious that the subject NEVER came up before 305 AD, as that writer claimed.

I Corinthians 7 seems to discuss it.      There's verses on being married, and intimacy between spouses being expected and recommended for those with spouses.   There's something on not getting out of a marriage.   There also seems verses on celibacy- unless I misunderstand them. 

1 Corinthians 7 King James Version (KJV)

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

I wouldn't get hung up on the date, I think his context is it being an early written codification, an ecclesiastical effort of the coalescing "Catholic Church", formal, clerical, non-liturgical, as a synod/council in a Roman province, in Spain - my impression of those earlier settings were that while provincial they did have some authority and laid the groundwork for the later councils. 

Paul makes reference to saying things "by permission" and having "an opinion", and I think we should see that for what it is. Some of it is informed advice from a caring pastor for his growing church communities and the extended affairs of life. 

Celibacy and matters a person chooses related to marriage and sex are matters of choice, with some guidance as we see here. If someone wishes to go that route, go for it. A guy like Paul makes it sound like not being married will free a person up to devote their time, their lives to God. For those whom that works, they're free to go for it. For those who don't want to do that there's a full life for them too. Paul's ideas and opinions in this are are informed and the product of his knowledge,  experience and general benevolence for the people he felt responsible. It shows when he wrote things like

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rocky said:

Intriguing history, Socks. Thanks for sharing it. To me, the salient point in the article is in the final paragraph:

"Despite the decrees from the Middle Ages, celibacy is still a “discipline” of the church, which can be changed, rather than a “dogma”, or a divinely revealed truth from God which cannot be altered. As the world has changed, the Church has had a harder time recruiting priests. Numbers have been dropping: between 1970 and 2014 the world’s Catholic population grew from 654m to 1.23bn, while the number of priests declined from 420,000 to 414,000. Some prospective priests don’t want to choose between having a life with God and having a family. It is not inconceivable that the time will come again when they can have both."

Seems to me that a lot of the social sickness in the RC church could be mitigated if they change the "discipline".

 

Even if they get married and have vibrant sex it doesn't mean they won't go into sodomy, as well.    These guys at the Vatican made (supposedly) a commitment to the Lord a long time ago knowing the rules and didn't live up.    They should have quit a long time ago but figured they can get away with it, very few of the "good ones" have the cajones to object so the bad ones can keep their cushy positions and engage in sodomy all at the same time.   Over time there apparently have been so few that can mount a force powerful enough to clean things up.     It's been said that it will take a complete destruction from the Lord to fix things; can't or won't be done by human hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Even if they get married and have vibrant sex it doesn't mean they won't go into sodomy, as well

This is a baffling statement. Can you expound a bit more?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Even if they get married and have vibrant sex it doesn't mean they won't go into sodomy, as well.    These guys at the Vatican made (supposedly) a commitment to the Lord a long time ago knowing the rules and didn't live up.    They should have quit a long time ago but figured they can get away with it, very few of the "good ones" have the cajones to object so the bad ones can keep their cushy positions and engage in sodomy all at the same time.   Over time there apparently have been so few that can mount a force powerful enough to clean things up.     It's been said that it will take a complete destruction from the Lord to fix things; can't or won't be done by human hands.

Now you're getting into church politics. Probably leads to a rabbit hole that would be counterproductive here.

However, like waysider suggested, perhaps you could clarify/expound on that first sentence.

Given generally accepted definitions of sodomy, why would you be concerned about what goes on in private/behind closed doors for a married couple?

And how is that a "matter of [your] faith?

"These guys at the Vatican...", I assume are not robots. They have hormones coursing through their bodies just like anyone else. Hormones are generally more powerful than "commitments" made without understanding said hormones.

Also, it occurred to me when reading the article Socks linked, that the possibility exists that adopting the practice of celebrex... er, celibacy may have had an economic factor. As we know (in not nearly enough detail), the RC church is mega rich.

Nevertheless, the underlying social sickness that has been exposed in the last 50 years can easily be traced to "the discipline." IT is unnatural, perhaps even more so than sodomy, IMO.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Even if they get married and have vibrant sex it doesn't mean they won't go into sodomy, as well.    These guys at the Vatican made (supposedly) a commitment to the Lord a long time ago knowing the rules and didn't live up.    They should have quit a long time ago but figured they can get away with it, very few of the "good ones" have the cajones to object so the bad ones can keep their cushy positions and engage in sodomy all at the same time.   Over time there apparently have been so few that can mount a force powerful enough to clean things up.     It's been said that it will take a complete destruction from the Lord to fix things; can't or won't be done by human hands.

Weeeeeell, the issue of concern isn't some old guy's opinion about what makes for vibrant sex, or what he does in privacy alone for that matter - it's illegally and immorally taking advantage of others using the authority of their rank and position including underage boys and girls, in an organization that essentially sanctions and protects that activity. 

The way in which the RC's have built their societies of men and women "of the cloth" is a disaster, it's a plan for failure. Even if you just took what's in the N.T. and just applied that to those who wish to pastor, teach and carry on the work of the church as lifetime commitments you would be encouraged to not create circumstances that produce pressure and difficulty, you'd be encouraged to create those which make it manageable and useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What makes you feel so good when your baby wears her evening gown? Must be the same thing that made a preacher lay his bible down.".....Muddy Waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Even if they get married and have vibrant sex it doesn't mean they won't go into sodomy, as well.    These guys at the Vatican made (supposedly) a commitment to the Lord a long time ago knowing the rules and didn't live up.    They should have quit a long time ago but figured they can get away with it, very few of the "good ones" have the cajones to object so the bad ones can keep their cushy positions and engage in sodomy all at the same time.   Over time there apparently have been so few that can mount a force powerful enough to clean things up.     It's been said that it will take a complete destruction from the Lord to fix things; can't or won't be done by human hands.

Oldies,

Over the years, I think you've had a continuing problem with the subjects of "fiduciary responsibility" and "risk management" (related concepts.)  I think it's an "idea barrier"- something like a "language barrier", but with incompatible IDEAS rather than incompatible WORDS.    I will try to explain how they relate here.

Simply put, a "fiduciary responsibility" is the responsibility someone has in running a system, a program, etc.  The RCC's system of ordination- candidacy and all the steps to ordination- is a program (or set of programs) that is meant for people to go through.  The RCC has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure it's safe for the participants, and actually does what it's purported to do  (i.e. train their clergy.)     Now, "risk management" means to look at a system or program and see where possible dangers lie, and eliminate the risks by redesign or by adding counter-measures specifically to address them.    (If the candidates have to ford a shallow creek, risk management will either say to make a little bridge or to relocate what they have to do so they don't cross that creek, for example.) 

The RCC has a responsibility- one which they've shirked-  to go over their program,  identify ALL the risks, then do whatever they have to in order to eliminate the risks, or at least minimize the risks.    Just because no measure is 100% foolproof- especially against human stupidity- does not mean no measures are taken.   So, you sound like you're saying that allowing marriage won't do ANYTHING to the risk of sodomy, and therefore marriage should not be discussed nor instituted.  Au contraire.  Marriage won't solve ALL the problems, but it will alleviate a few:   1)  More responsible candidates would step forward, sure they could serve God as well as have a wife and possibly family.  This will reverse the current trend of decreasing numbers of clergy, which is a problem.  Alleviating this will mean it will be easier to take a hard line on unfit clergy.  The current clergy, to a degree, are worried that their numbers are so small that it may be worse to lose more priests than to keep a "potential" molester in place.   With more clergy, they can see what is the greater risk.   So, those alone will address 2 problems.    Furthermore,  by allowing priests to marry and have conjugal relations with their own wives, they will have a solution to problems of how to address persistent lustful desires besides "leave the clergy or molest someone."   So, molestation cases will go down, at least in part, with SOME of the motives to molest removed. 

So, risk management would suggest that allowing clergy to marry MAY be the solution they need.    (I say "MAY" because they will need to go over the possible consequences of this, and address them ahead of time.  Personally, I think it's worthwhile and sensible, but they may not agree with me.   I say the benefits outweigh the handicaps.)

 

========================

What we DO agree on is that those who realized they couldn't do the job responsibly should have resigned rather than molest,  and should have been dumped and charged by police if they refused to resign and chose to molest instead.     It's not as if the problem is some kind of secret-  everybody knows they're supposed to be celibate long before they submit an application.   I know someone who went to Catholic school (not me.)  They did a field trip to a place where they train priests- a retreat or something (AFAIK, this is standard, and I was on one such field trip, long ago.)   In his case, the clergyman leading the trip addressed him privately, and asked if he'd ever considered Holy Orders.  He emphatically said he would never consider it, because clergy had to be celibate for life and there was no way he was going to go along with that.  Mildly amused, the clergyman replied that he was glad that he'd already considered that and had taken it into account, since it was better to realize that and not apply than to realize it once one is a candidate.  (I'm paraphrasing the words but I have the ideas represented fairly.)

I think the RCC is going to need strong measures to fix this-  and is going to have to make some permanent changes to fix this.  They have the responsibility to do whatever they have to in order to safeguard the flock.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, socks said:

Weeeeeell, the issue of concern isn't some old guy's opinion about what makes for vibrant sex, or what he does in privacy alone for that matter - it's illegally and immorally taking advantage of others using the authority of their rank and position including underage boys and girls, in an organization that essentially sanctions and protects that activity. 

The way in which the RC's have built their societies of men and women "of the cloth" is a disaster, it's a plan for failure. Even if you just took what's in the N.T. and just applied that to those who wish to pastor, teach and carry on the work of the church as lifetime commitments you would be encouraged to not create circumstances that produce pressure and difficulty, you'd be encouraged to create those which make it manageable and useful.

More or less, that's what I said (I used more words, not less. ;)    )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...