May 10, 2010
-
My Thoughts on Priestly Celibacy, pt. 2
blueskies8 asked how priestly celibacy can help the laity. That’s an excellent question! As some pointed out in their initial comments and in Part 1, celibacy frees a man up for complete, 24/7 ministry to those he is sent to serve. So if a lay person needs the priest for whatever reason at whatever time, odds are that the priest is available, imitating as best as humanly possible the complete and utter availability of Christ. I think also there is the hope that the priest’s dedication to God and the way he lives out his priesthood is an inspiration for lay people to live their lives with the same dedication. Priestly celibacy and marriage are not opposed to each other, but complimentary, for both are a total dedication to another out of an all-encompassing love for that other. Just as marriage is symbolic and participates in the reality of Christ’s love for the Church, His Bride, I see a priest’s celibacy as representing a similar total-gift and dedication to that same Bride. Being as that Bride is a spiritual one (with a physical reality, certainly), it would be very different from marriage to a human person, especially as regards sex.
One way that helps me to understand this is to look at the Virgin Mary’s life, since she remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth. What helps me to understand her perpetual virginity is to look at her life in the context of marriage. Her heart would belong most to the father of her child, would it not? She is the mother and God is the Father; not Joseph. Thus her fidelity lies foremost to God, who appoints Joseph to be caretaker of His household and all within it (like Joseph of the Old Testament in a way), but since her true “husband” is not a man but God, there is no sex (though even in virginity there is life and fruitfulness), and to even have sex with Joseph (technically her husband by law) would be to have sex with someone other than the Father of her child, someone other than He to whom she is already wed. Does that make sense? It helps me at any rate, looking at her life and her spiritual marriage to God as a way of understanding celibacy. So regarding the laity, hopefully a priest’s dedication to their own marriage (their complete and total dedication to the Church for love of God) inspires in them a similar devotion to their own married life and their own relationship with God. If this wasn’t helpful at all, please do ignore it…
mortimerZilch stated that “for the priest [guilty of abuse] to continue saying Mass without repentence…that…completely invalidates that person’s entire ministry…”
Not so! Because the priest does not exercise his own priesthood but rather Christ’s, it is Christ who says the Mass, baptizes, etc. Thus no sin or shortcoming of the priest limits or invalidates the sacraments he offers. This was something dealt with by the Church regarding the Donatists. There was a terrible persecution of the Church at the time and many people denounced their faith or turned over copies of the Scriptures in order to save their own lives; even priests were guilty of these things. After the persecution had ended, many of these people wanted to return to their Christian communities, but some communities told them they would have to be baptized again and receive all the sacraments a second time because they had lost them. Even priests would have to be reordained, and any priest who was guilty of any sin, really, could not offer a valid Mass, etc. The Church, however, condemned all of this as heresy, because it is Christ who ministers the sacraments through the priest, not the priest himself. So no matter how sin-ridden, drunk or otherwise inept a priest may be, his Mass is valid because it is Christ, not the man, who offers and is the sacrifice, and both are perfect.
He also raised the question of trying the Pope or “the Church” as an international criminal organization, though not to convict either. I suppose I would respond initially with, “Then why bother trying if there will be no conviction?” and continue with asking why not try the United States for all the terrible things it does internationally, or any other country for that matter? The Catholic Church is not a criminal organization, bent on swindling people out of money, smuggling illegal goods, or sexually abusing children. The idea that the entire Church is behind child abuse is a gross inflation, a fire that has been generously fanned by the media. The number of priests guilty of abuse is considerably small, and the number of bishops guilty of intentionally hiding these priests is even smaller. But because so many people trusted the Church so much, discovering this (in spite of its limited scope) shakes the world. What if the Red Cross admitted that some of their volunteers were guilty of smuggling, theft or abuse? Should we take them to court as an international criminal organization?
Please understand this is not necessarily directed at you, but presented more as a response to many similar issues raised; this idea was proposed my many media sources too.
theramblingman raised the issue of the Pope seeming to do too little, stating that the Church “needs new blood that is willing to stamp down on child abuse; actions are louder than words.” I would offer firstly that the Pope is not like a king or a president; he isn’t intricately involved in the micromanagement of the Church, which is a world-wide organization with well over a billion members. That is why the Church is divided into diocese, with each diocese being led by a bishop, who answers to Rome and ultimately to the Pope. The Pope leaves local matters to the local bishops, involving himself with matters that concern the worldwide Church, getting involved in the details only when necessary, such as the abuse crisis we are discussing now. While the media has been criticizing the Pope for seeming to do too little, there are many people who think he is doing a very good job, considering the scope of the problem. In fact, while meeting with abuse victims in Malta, one victim stated that the Pope’s visit “was truly a most beautiful gift, after all this suffering, we all cried, even the Pope.” Later the victim stated, “I did not have any faith in priests. Now, after this moving experience, I have hope again. You people in Italy have a saint. Do you realize that? You have a saint.” (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/abuse_victim_in_malta_pope_benedict_xvi_is_a_saint/)
Finally, Winsa asked a few questions, first wondering about priestly celibacy in light of Scripture, I am assuming 1 Timothy 3, which refers to deacons and bishops. At the time this was written, I imagine that the understanding of the priestly vocation was understood differently and, more likely, the Church herself was quite different. A bishop/priest’s task would be quite different serving a Church that consisted solely of Eucharistic celebrations that occurred in the privacy of people’s homes before sunrise on Sundays, whereas the Church in latter times, as membership rose and large structures were built to accommodate a large number of worshippers and a more involved administrative structure was required to see to the needs of the growing Body, the services of the bishops and priests had to change. They likely noticed that those priests and bishops who were unmarried were better able to meet those demands, whereas those who were married struggled and were often forced to divide their lives between their families and their Church. Eventually celibacy became the norm, though there are yet several rites within the Catholic Church that allow for married priests (though bishops, I believe, must be celibate), and even in the recent dialogue with the Anglicans and the guidelines for entire parishes of Anglicans entering into communion with Rome the Church is permitting those priests entering into communion to continue serving as priests, even if they are married, and those future men who are Anglican and in communion with the Church who are married and wish to serve as priests may do so. The Church is not opposed to married clergy, but the Latin Rite (the most prominent rite or “expression” of Catholicism) has a strong tradition of celibate clergy and finds it to be the most effective way of living the priestly life as it is understood today. That may change in the future, and it may not, who knows?
She also asked about the command to “be fruitful and multiply,” which is something many people bring up regarding the idea of priestly celibacy. I would respond with the question, “What do you mean by “fruitful” and “multiply?” Certainly there is the understanding of “have children, and often!” but then we remember that it was to a virgin that God came and asked of her one child. Was God “bending” his own command? Likewise we think of Christ, who was unmarried; was God disregarding His own commandment? Yet would anyone accuse Christ of not being fruitful? Nonsense! There is a physical kind of fruitfulness, as revealed in the begetting of children, but there is also a spiritual fruitfulness; this is the way that the celibate priest and chaste religious live.
This is connected with your comment, “I would think that strong men such as yourselves would WANT to raise sons in the way that you learn/are.
” (thank you for your kindness, btw!) There is a reason why Catholic priests are referred to as “father,” not as a substitute or stand-in for God the Father, but because priests do live out a spiritual fatherhood, raising, providing for and defending the Children of God, born in the Church through baptism. Personally, I have felt called to being a father and a husband since the sixth grade (fourteen years ago or so), so when I was in the novitiate I very much struggled with the thought that God had planted that deep desire in me, yet in the end called me away from it. How cruel! But once I surrendered that desire to Him to fulfill, returning it to the Giver, He began to show me how HE planned to fulfill it, doing so in a more complete way than I could ever have imagined, bringing to me a joy that I have never known and never thought possible. I reflect upon it more in this past post: http://ancient-scribe.xanga.com/674382543/blessed-art-thou-amongst-women/ Basically, though, the priest is fruitful by his labor for God and by bringing more and more people into the Church by that work. Through baptism he brings new Children of God into the world, and because of his priestly role he has a duty and responsibility to them as though they were his own children (and they are, in a spiritual sense), and thus he is yet fruitful and multiplying, keeping the commandment and fulfilling it as Christ did.
I hope that these thoughts have been helpful! If I didn’t answer your question specifically, it was because your question was similar enough to another’s question that both could be answered simultaneously. Still, if you feel like you didn’t have your question answered, let men know in the comments and I’ll see to it immediately! As always, feel free to continue asking whatever questions you wish. God bless, and please keep praying for me and all priests! We pray for you and the whole world every day.
My favorite Catholic synopsis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w
Watch this AWESOME video on the priesthood:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqtOvt7d490
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnwodBiLq1g
Post a Comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments (43)
the good of a good is not diminished by the abuse of that good. so many people just want to write off the Pope and Church altogether because of a few bad things a few people did… but that’s not how God works or sees us at all. if anything, that notion points out how those people who want schism need to grow and grow in Him.
One lone voice in the wilderness does not constitute God’s forgiveness as whole for his priests who have abused children.
In many respects you are right on a nation to nation basis it is the responsibility of the senior Bishop or cardinal to take action on such matters, but there is still a problem with the enactment of that.
A priest can no more tell a bishop what to do and a bishop would dare not tell a pope what to do and that still holds true today.
Somewhere you have to draw a line and say that is not acceptable.
In today’s world we are judged on our actions and our words, or for the lack of them which in essence is what this is about.
I do not cast judgement against the church for it is not the churches fault, it is those within that fall silent on those that have been abused and fail to take responsibility for those actions take against children who could not defend themselves.
If we forget those children who will remember them, the church? Sadly I think not.
Thank you so much for offering some thoughts on MY comments!
I feel very honored. I really am just trying to understand more from YOUR POV even if I don’t quite understand/agree myself.
I have thought similar things regarding children, and what not. I will never forget one mothers day, many years ago, our pastors wife recieved words from God, and she was told to make a few special women in the church a mothers day card. She handpainted each one and blessed each woman that she gave it to, saying that God had said, “this is the kind of mother that you are, — etc” and praying over them…
Little did I know, or ever expect that she then turned and called out my name. MY NAME! I was not a mother… I was 16/17… (maybe a tad younger) I was a virgin still! Unmarried! She stood me up and handed me a BLANK card, purple, covered in gorgeous handpainted purple flowers. It was blank… she explained, “This is for you, because you will be the mother to many many people, even older than you because you are wise” (I wish I could remember all that she said, I am merely trying to recall what I believe she said) something to the effect of that because I was so loving, caring, and didn’t judge the younger generation, I would be a great light to them –
I still have this card. I look at it from time to time with fondness. We found out a few years ago, that… I might not be able to bear children. They THINK that I can, and it is of course my decision to try (at all) but, I will be 27 this year, and have not had my womb blessed with a child. However, I have played/felt mother to many people including some older… some younger. So, in this, I understand.
Thank you for your point of view and clarifying things. I appreciate it.
I have a question about the idea of Mary’s “perpetual virginity.” I’m just sitting here eating breakfast, so I don’t have the applicable scriptures in front of me, but that stuck out at me. Jesus had brothers – flesh-and-blood siblings that the Bible mentions several times in the Gospels. That doesn’t make sense if Mary and Joseph never had sex. (FYI, I’m coming from a Protestant background with no belief that Mary remained a virgin, nor that she was totally without sin [which would have made her just as good a sacrificial lamb as Jesus in that regard, but that's another discussion entirely!].) Thoughts?
@ael_ecurai - i think scribe addressed that idea above or in a previous post that the somewhere in the translation (hebrew-greek-old english-modern-english-whatever) the original words used for “brother” could also mean “close relative”. Theologically speaking though, Mary has to be without sin–only because God chose her to be, as she would say Yes to Him when Eve said No, thus it’s a humble acceptance of Grace that renders Mary Full of said Grace. Her Fullness then extends beyond time, before Christ’s birth and even after it, as She alone shares the strongest bond with Him, ie Mother-Child.
i think the problem that Protestants have is that sinlessness is equated to divinity… when in reality, if you think about it, sinlessness is God’s original design for humanity. it’s in Genesis. aside from that, since Jesus was fully divine AND fully human, yet still without sin, as pointed out in Hebrews, yes, he’s the “perfect” example that we too can and should be sinless as well, asuming that we join with Him in all aspects of His Life, though our humble acceptance of Grace, just as Mary did.
so, while it doesn’t say anywhere that Mary and Joseph didn’t have anymore kids anywhere in the Bible, we can arrive at that conclusion when we look at multiple passages, put a little bit of thought and spiritual direction from His Catholic Church, the Divinely Appointed Authourity on Scripture. heck, people can reach that conclusion even without the Catholic Church (since the Bible’s a Catholic book anyway).
@theramblingman -
Oh the victims will be remembered for a very long time; this last decade will be a part of Church history from here on out. You might find this article agreeable: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10610770 Our Pope is taking this whole thing very seriously and is doing everything he can to make sure justice is done, that future incidents do not occur, and that those priests with problems are dealt with. Already many things have been implemented; you wouldn’t BELIEVE the interviewing process I had to go through back in 2006 when I applied to the Jesuits, and we have to go to workshops and things every single year, plus background checks whenever we begin a new ministry.
@Winsa -
You already have a mother’s heart; the rest will follow in God’s way and time for sure!
@rusty0505 -
Thanks for the assist brother!
@ael_ecurai -
In addition to my brother’s thoughts, I would add that it makes sense that Mary was sinless, because Original Sin is hereditary (even St. Paul writes that sin entered the world through one man), or rather our fallen, sinful nature is. Also, what fallen, sinful woman could offer to God the perfect “yes,” that complete and perfect commitment needed to receive the Incarnate God? Also, this is the woman that would be raising the Son of God, teaching Him everything; is this a job that could be entrusted to a sinner? Sin is learned, too. Just some thoughts to stir the pot a little; feel free to ask any questions and I’ll do my best to answer them!
Great post as usual…
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Eastern Rites with regards to some of their views on celibacy?
oh i watched fishers of men before very good videos. hehe i saw that at the convent i believe the first time
@QuantumStorm -
I think that their tradition and practice of married clergy is perfectly fine and that their rites are such that married clergy is a livable way of life. But the Roman Rite, not so much. Why that is I don’t know; I am not terribly familiar with the Eastern Rites myself. But obviously it works for them, and they have a long-standing tradition of it, and if it caused problems something would be done!
I love the Eastern Churches though; what a treasure!
@rusty0505 -
What enables us to say “yes” to God, and be with sin…
Yet Mary has to be without sin to say “yes”?
@NightCometh - we can certainly say “yes” to God and still be with sin… yet it completely hinders us from continually saying “yes” to Him in every moment. think of it this way. Mary IS the Mother of God… at the very least, you have to agree that She WAS His Mother while He was on earth… so She had the responsibility of raising the God Child Jesus from the moment of His Conception in Her Womb until His Adulthood (wow so many caps). of course, She never stops being His Mother, just as yours or mine will never stop being our respective mothers. yet, during those times when Jesus needed His Mother–the Passion of the Christ movie portays this beautifully, btw–She was given a choice to make. Say yes to Her Savior by raising Him so that He would mature into the Man who takes away all sin, yours and mine, OR say no to Him, to sin even in the smallest way, and somehow damage their relationship and somehow Christ’s work is less significant… so when you think about it in that sense, so much of what Christians profess depends on Mary’s sinlessness… to say that Mary was not sinless is really an offense to Jesus’ Humanity. and, if you believe in His Full Humanity, just as you must believe in His Full Divinity, then it only further serves the notion that His Mother too, because God chose Her in the womb of St Anne (Mary’s mother) to be so, was concieved without sin. She had to be without sin in order to say “yes” to Him initially AND continually in every moment, as He would depend on Her as much as any son would depend on his mother. so, does that help you then understand why Mary, with the necessity of her sinlessness, is a perfect example of humility for Christians everywhere?
of course, this idea points to the flaw in the idea that Christians just need to pray a prayer to be “saved”, but that’s for another day…
anyway, i admit that this is a hard teaching and i hope i explained it adequately… the more i ponder it and try to explain it, the more i fall in Love with Our Holy Mother, which only brings me into a deeper Love for and with Christ.
@Ancient_Scribe -
Hi! I’m a Christian and I’ve had some questions about catholic doctrines for awhile, so hope you don’t mind iof I chime in.
“Also, what fallen, sinful woman could offer to God the perfect “yes,” that complete and perfect commitment needed to receive the Incarnate God? Also, this is the woman that would be raising the Son of God, teaching Him everything; is this a job that could be entrusted to a sinner?”
Yes, I think it is a job that could be entrusted in a sinner. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” -Romans 3:23. That includes Moses, Isaiah, David, Daniel, Joshua, Paul, Peter, John the apostle, John the baptist, and every believer since. I don’t see why there is any reason at all to doubt that Mary was a sinner. The whole Bible is whole of examples of God using sinners to accomplish his great deeds, and it’s only by the blood of His Lamb that we are without sin.
@rusty0505 -
“Theologically speaking though, Mary has to be without sin.”
I disagree with this (see above comment) but what does that have to do with perpetual virginity? There’s no sin in having sex with one’s husband? Does not God condone physical intimacy between husband and wife? I can see no rational basis for therefore assuming that Mary continued to be a virgin.
@kk_grayfox -
I don’t mind at ALL! Thank you for coming by.
You are right that God has indeed trusted many amazing things to sinners, to His greater glory. But to liken the Incarnation of God to anything ever done before, I think, is to make a mistake! If Jesus was perfectly human, it would be up to his parents (his mother especially in the earliest years of his life in that culture) to raise him, teach him right and wrong, teach him the Jewish faith, etc. If Mary was a sinner, a fallen human being, he would learn sin from her, even in spite of her best efforts. Also, St. Paul writes in Romans 5 that death entered the world through one man’s sin, that by the sin of Adam we are all fallen sinners; we inherit sin from our parents. Were Mary a sinner, Christ too would have inherited our fallen, human nature. These are a few of the things we believe regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception and lack of sin, and as you can see everything we believe about Mary comes from what we believe about Christ; if Christ is who he is, then there are some things that had to be the case about Mary, even if it is not to be found in the Bible (St. John admits at the end of his Gospel that not everything was written down; there is so much that exists only in the living Tradition of the Church, so much handed down orally from the Apostles all the way to today!).
I know that Mary and the Catholic beliefs about her are difficult for many non-Catholics because so much of our belief is not found in the Bible (though the Bible also doesn’t refute our beliefs). One point I might offer is that many mistakenly assume that we think she was sinless by her own efforts. Not so! The Catechism teaches that “to become the mother of the Savior, Mary ‘enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace. (Lk. 1:28)” In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith (her “yes” as I mentioned previously) to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace. (#490)”
When Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception as dogma, he said, “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (#491)” You see, it is Christ who saves and redeems our fallen nature, and even before His Incarnation, at the moment of the conception of the woman who would have the opportunity from God to be His own mother, He redeemed her even as He would one day redeem us all. However, unlike us who though redeemed must suffer sin in this life before being freed in death and coming to new life, she was redeemed in her first moment, and thus did not inherit a fallen nature as we do and lived a life free of sin (though not free of suffering, as we see in the Passion and Death of her Son!). I hope that helps a little.
Regarding your statement toward my brother, about perpetual virginity, you are right; there is no sin in having sex with one’s husband. Perhaps it would help you to understand the matter, however, by looking in a rational way, as it is a rational basis that you seek for this line of Catholic thought.
1. God desires that children be born to a husband and wife and not outside the marital covenant (the consecration, before God, of two people to each other).
2. The angel Gabriel, sent to speak on God’s behalf, asks her to be the mother of God’s Son, and she consents; a covenant is made (You will be His mother; I am His father).
3. Mary is Christ’s mother, and God is Christ’s true Father, though God charges Joseph with the task of caring for the both of them, even though Jesus is not TRULY his son.
4. To be faithful to the father of her Son, the One by whom she begot her first born, she must not have sex with Joseph, who though he is her husband by law, she holds to a higher law, a covenant with God in the blood of the Christ-child born of her womb. Her perpetual virginity is a sign of fidelity to her true spouse, the one to whom she has consecrated herself. In marriage, God tells us, the “two become one flesh.” This has yet come to pass even in Mary, even she whose husband is Spirit, for is not Christ God and Mary as “one flesh,” the Divine and the Earthly united in one person?
I hope that this also helps to understand where we are coming from. Please always feel free to message me with more questions if you wish, and God bless you!
@kk_grayfox -
My brother
@rusty0505 -
reminds me (and I HOPE you don’t feel like we are teaming up on you or anything!) in asking “what keeps people from believing” is that so many people I dialogue with about Mary who have difficulty accepting/understanding what the Church has believed for centuries do not seem to take the matter to their prayer. Why not ask Jesus about His mother and what He would have you believe? The Church has found over the last two thousand years that as we come to know Mary and understand her, we come an even deeper and clearer understanding of Christ; I’m sure that the reverse is also true, in fact, I’m sure of it since most of what we know about Mary comes from what we know about her Son! So do take the matter to prayer, and ask Him for His guidance in the matter. Blessings on all of that!
idk what’s going on. i’m on the school’s computer. i deleted my comment because i had a grammatical error that significantly changed the meaning of what i said. i really do need to proof my comments before posting. here’s what i wanted to say:
@kk_grayfox - part of what you need to acknowledge here too is the context of Jewish culture. Yes, God condones physical intimacy between husband and wife. yet, as scribe points out, the Father of Mary’s Son is God so it would be like cheating on God if she had relations with Joseph. So, Catholics believe, and rightfully so, that Joseph as most chaste. you do raise some good points, and it is by His Blood that we are cleansed and healed. The thing about faith and Grace though is that it’s not really dependent on head knowledge. Did Mary have to know that Her Son was going to be brutally beaten, that He was going to suffer so? we can’t be sure… but She was told that She would bare the Son of God. It’s by her humble acceptance of Grace, which we are all to imitate, that makes anything Jesus did even possible. in the same way, we humbly accept the Gifts that God gives us, which includes salvation, justification, redemption, etc through His Son. furthermore, part of the problem is that there is a great misunderstanding about Mary. She is Holy because God, Who can do whatever He wants, willed it. it’s really hard for people to understand the important things about God because they are matters of faith. so many people go around looking for signs, for proof, even biblical, when so many times we as the supposed believers are disciplined by Christ and His Church because we don’t believe, because we don’t have faith in what They teach. that seems to be the bigger issue.
so really, friends, i ask all of you… what keeps you from believing? what keeps you from having faith that when God says x, y, or z, that it’s True? what prevents you from accepting, though you may not fully understand it, and believing what His Holy Church teaches, when it’s only good for you and for His Glory? what roadblocks keep you from trusting the Lord?
@Ancient_Scribe -
I appreciate your detailed response.
“We inherit sin from our parents”
So then wouldn’t Mary have inherited sin from her parents, and thus she would have been with sin?
I understand your point theologically about Jesus not inheriting sin, but perhaps since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and His own spirit was the Spirit of God, that was the overriding factor which allowed Jesus to be sinless. I had never considered that Jesus would have had to be taught Torah from his mother, but wouldn’t Joseph have figured prominently into that too? Perhaps I’m ignorant of ancient Jewish customs, but I would think the burden of teaching Torah fell upon the father, or Jesus was sent to be taught Torah by a rabbi. So I’m having trouble seeing the justification that since Jesus was taught by someone, it must have been his mother because we already determined that she was sinless.
I’m thinking Jesus’ real teacher was God Himself (which I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with to some degree). Perhaps angels taught Him personally. It says that when Jesus was in the desert, after he endured the temptation, he was ministered to by angels. In fact, in Luke chapter 8, Jesus was in the temple impressing the scribes with His wisdom. Do you think he got this from Mary? Do you think all of his teachings ultimately came from Mary? I understand most Jewish boys would have learned partially from their parents and probably more so from the rabbi, but they would just have as much understanding as their teachers did. Jesus’ understanding of the Father was far deeper than anybody else’s, so how could it have come from anywhere but God Himself? So Jesus’ sinlessness makes sense to me to have been directly from the constant intervention and leadings of His Spirit.
As for perpetual virginity and the concept of God being Mary’s husband, there seem to be a few issues with that. By the very reasoning you use, wouldn’t that make God an adulterer? Technically, if she was married to Joseph, and God then conceived in her (and thus became her new husband) this make God guilty of adultery. Obviously the very notion of God being an adulterer is ludicrous, but I don’t think God ever intended Mary to consider Him as her literal husband. The only way it seems that God was her husband is the way He’s the husband of EVERY Christian in the world, male and female. I’m not yet married, but if I do marry, God will be my husband, He will be my first love, He will be my one and only. This doesn’t mean that He wouldn’t want me to be married or have intimacy with my spouse. Therefore, I don’t understand how God could be considered the literal spouse of Mary. He was probably plenty happy for her to be married to Joseph and have children of her own (I’m of the opinion that Jesus probably had siblings, though I won’t dogmatically assert this since it doesn’t seem important). Besides, marriage is just a worldly thing. Like Jesus said, there’s no marriage in Heaven (so why would God marry?), so if Mary stayed a virgin it seems to deny her marital rights for seemingly no reason (as well as Joseph’s marital rights).
I appreciate your thoughts, brother
-Chris
@Ancient_Scribe -
Good suggestion. I’ll do that.
@kk_grayfox -
“So then wouldn’t Mary have inherited sin from her parents, and thus she would have been with sin?”
Oops! I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in my previous response, but I addressed this very concern:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (#491)”
That is a direct quote from the Catechism regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that from the moment of her own conception God redeemed her from sin, and thus she did not inherit original sin or a fallen, human nature, not because she or her parents were particularly worthy, but it was a lavish gift from God in preparation for what would later be asked of her.
“I understand your point theologically about Jesus not inheriting sin, but perhaps since he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and His own spirit was the Spirit of God, that was the overriding factor which allowed Jesus to be sinless.”
I can understand this thought of yours, and it would seem that if one’s very spirit is the Spirit of God, then how could sin yet find a place in that person? Yet does not the Holy Spirit dwell in each of the baptized, and aren’t we still sinners? I am also reminded of St. Paul’s thoughts in Philippians 2, particularly verse 7 when he mentions that in taking the form of man, Jesus “emptied himself.” He voluntarily surrendered so much in order to be one of us, exactly like us in every way except for sin. If that is true, then this “emptiness” would have to be filled by God, by Mary, by Joseph, by extended family, friends, etc. like any other human being. If Christ could later be tempted by the Devil in the desert, couldn’t the toddler Christ be equally susceptible to learning sin from his mother or even his earthly father (who, praise God, was known to be “a righteous man” (Matt. 1:19))? To safeguard against this, God provided a mother without sin (since the youngest years of a child’s life were most influenced by the mother, since the father would be out working during the day) and even a righteous, holy father who also would benefit from the presence and example of such a holy, devout wife dedicated to God and, to Joseph’s humble honor I am sure, entrusted to his own care. Could you imagine being entrusted not only to care for the Mother of God, but also His Son? Ancient tradition also maintains that Joseph likely died while Jesus was still fairly young, in his early teens perhaps. I’m sure His mother played and even more critical role in his life afterwards!
Your second topic about the education of Jesus is very interesting! It seems to me, however, that God was working something new in this time, for always in the Gospels we see God working not directly, but through others. Even Christ who, being God, could easily have done everything himself, chose apostles to go and work in his place, with his authority and power (a tradition that lasts in an unbroken succession today!). While I wouldn’t attribute all of the wisdom he displayed in the Temple to Mary and Joseph, but I don’t think we can simply dismiss them as irrelevant. Notice his obedience to them afterwards; if he were autonomous in his instruction and understanding, if God or the angels taught him everything he knows, why should he be obedient to sinners? Is he not God come to save *us?* However, if he were instead taught the commandments of God by his sinless mother (through whom, being sinless, the Holy Spirit could operate without difficulty, being just as good as direct/angelic tutelage) and by his righteous father, taught just as any human child, then he would understand and obey the law of God perfectly, and thus honor His mother and the father His True Father has entrusted Him to. “Christ was sinless…by the constant intervention and leadings of His Spirit,” absolutely, but through the parents God had ordained for Him. With such parents, especially with such a mother (whom the Holy Spirit overshadowed and conceived within her womb the Christ-Child), the Spirit could lead Him with no difficulty and would thus maintain His utter humanity, being like us in every way but sin, learning and growing as we do, instead of merely “appearing” to be like us.
As for your thoughts on Mary’s perpetual virginity, I will have to come back to them tomorrow; until then! Thanks for the wonderful dialogue so far!
@kk_grayfox -
Good morning!
OK, perpetual virginity. I’m sorry that my thoughts and the image of marriage I used to describe Mary’s perpetual virginity wasn’t helpful, so please forget about it entirely and permit me to try a different approach.
I imagine that one of your major difficulties with accepting the belief that Mary remained a Virgin even after Christ’s birth comes from passages in the Gospel that seem to suggest Jesus had brothers and sisters. This is a common misconception because in the original Greek text of the Gospels, the word “adelphos” is used for “brother,” when “brother” itself is used to mean everything from cousin, close friend, disciples, etc. There is no word for cousin, half-brother, brother-in-law, nephew, etc. in Hebrew, so when a Jewish person was trying to explain their relation to someone they would not use the word “cousin” but would use the word “brother” instead of saying, “He’s my mother’s brother’s son.” If this is confusing or you would like specific examples, please let me know and I would be very happy to provide them.
I have a book here that offers, I think, a helpful point of view on the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity; I have added emphasis:
“The Church has always taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This information can be gleaned from many sources, but especially from the earliest liturgical prayers in which reference is made to ‘the Virgin.’ If Mary had not remained a virgin until her death, *why speak of her after the birth of Christ as such?* If one has an uncle who is a bachelor, he is rightly referred to as one’s ‘bachelor uncle.’ If he marries and thus ceases to be a bachelor, calling him a ‘bachelor uncle’ would be senseless. *In the same way, the early Church spoke of Mary ‘the Virgin’ precisely because of the belief that she lived and died a virgin. When this teaching was questioned in later centuries, we find the addition of the adverb ‘ever.’ Thus do the Creed of Epiphanius (ca. 374AD), the Second Council of Constantinople (553AD) and the Lateran Council (649AD) all speak of the ‘ever-Virgin Mary.’ St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria followed the same usage, *as did the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.*”
I hope that this has been more helpful for you than my previous attempt. Please do continue asking questions if you have them; I am more than happy to help you try and understand where your Catholic brothers and sisters (and ancestors!) are coming from!
@kk_grayfox - remember too that Jesus is Fully Divine AND Fully Human. fully and equally. we must not give too much weight to either His Divinity or His Humanity. yes, He’s God and it’s easy to see how he could have resisted temptation, yet He’s also Man… and God’s true intent for man, as we see from Genesis, is to also be without sin. so, as pointed out in hebrews (11:1, i think) about how He can indeed relate to us (or us to Him, rather) because He was tempted in everyway and still without sin, not becuase He was God, but because He was Man. i mean, that’s the point of the Incarnation, right? so if you believe in His Full Divinity AND His Full Humanity, you MUST give credit to God, His Father AND Mary, His Mother.
again, as far as Mary’s marrital rights… you have a good point about being “married to God”. however, God, the Father is Jesus’ Father, whereas Joseph was Jesus’ earthly foster father. Mary would be being unfaithful to God by sleeping with Joseph not because Her Husband is God, first, but because Her Son’s Father is The Father… it’s less of a matter of who’s married to whom, per se (because supposedly there won’t be marriage in Heaven as we know it here on earth), but, because according to Jewish TRADITION, as i understand it and i could be wrong, it’s more about remaining faithful to the father of one’s children. i know this is confusing and complex, but quite honestly, the more i think about Mary and the Truths about Her, the more i increase in devotion to Her, which draws me into deeper relationship to Jesus. ad jesum per mariam!
@Ancient_Scribe -
Hi!
Sorry I’m responding so late! I’ve been swamped with school stuff and haven’t made time to respond.
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (#491)”
I suppose I don’t see why it’s necessary to assume Mary must have been without sin. Scripture does not indicate it, but in fact seems to contradict it (“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” -Romans 3:23). I will admit that it’s very interesting to think about the fact that Mary had to raise Jesus, and I can see God choosing her because she was indeed favored (probably because of her love and devotion to God), so for her to be a particularly righteous, law-abiding woman makes sense. But to say that she did not sin at all seems unnecessary and unsound to myself (“If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” -1 John 1:10).
“it would seem that if one’s very spirit is the Spirit of God, then how could sin yet find a place in that person? Yet does not the Holy Spirit dwell in each of the baptized, and aren’t we still sinners?”
But Jesus was born with God’s Spirit, whereas His own baptism of the Holy Spirit (when the Spirit descended on Him like a dove) was a separate event. Whereas we are born with our own spirits, not God’s Spirit, but when we receive salvation we are born again and have His Spirit within us. At the point, we are no longer sinners by nature, but we are instead of the Spirit of God. Our new nature is towards righteousness.
“This is a common misconception because in the original Greek text of the Gospels, the word “adelphos” is used for “brother,” when “brother” itself is used to mean everything from cousin, close friend, disciples, etc….If this is confusing or you would like specific examples, please let me know and I would be very happy to provide them.”
I’m aware of the term adelphos having these multiple meanings, but it indeed can be used for the word “brother”, can it not? So why should the Catholic church be adamant that it indeed means cousin?
And what about how Paul uses a Greek word for cousin (anepsios) to describe the relationship between Mark and Barnabas (Colossians 4:19) but uses adelphos to refer to James’ relationship to Jesus?
“The Church has always taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin”
I seriously doubt this can be substantiated. Firstly because the very sources cited do not begin mentioning her being an “ever-Virgin” until 374 A.D. Secondly, because it doesn’t seem like early Christians talked about her at all or consider her to be of that much importance (not that she wasn’t valued by them and God as a daughter of God). Only two of the gospels considered it important to mention the virgin birth (which is more than none, of course but it shows Mark and John didn’t find it to be a crucial element). In Galatians 4:4, Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, not even mentioning Mary’s name or her virginity. The gospels and Acts mention her in sporadic places (not always appending her name with “Virgin”). I could be wrong, but I don’t think she’s mentioned anywhere else in scripture. Beyond this, the Nicene Creed does not even mention her which was written in 325 A.D., before the Creed of Epiphanius.
My point is that the original apostles and disciples barely talked about this woman, only appearing to mention her as a vessel for a miraculous birth of the Messiah and a faithful disciple of Jesus. Yet so many doctrines and thoughts have arisen around her. These, to me, seem to only be later developments. In fact, when I read the Protoevangelion of James in a 2nd Century Christianity course, it appeared that it was from this non-canonical book that many of these creeds developed (not sure if you’ve read it). To be fair, it’s earlier than any of the creeds you mentioned (as early as 140 A.D.), but its pseudepigraphical status (it claims to be written by James) makes the source’s reliability suspect.
Btw, I want to thank you again for your thoughtful answers. Sorry if I seem antagonistic, because I’m not trying to be. You just never know how the tone of text on the internet can appear.
May God Bless you
-Chris
@rusty0505 -
Hi Rusty! Sorry for replying so late. Been bogged down with school fun-ness…lol.
“you MUST give credit to God, His Father AND Mary, His Mother.”
I disagree. I only give credit to God because even though clearly different people would have influenced Jesus’ teaching (parents of course, as well as rabbis and perhaps other family members), Jesus was showing what humans can do by having a deep and dependent relationship with God. He was not saying, “Hey, if you have a Virgin, sinless mother to teach you, you can do what I do!” but rather, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can move mountains.” Once again, though not discounting Mary being his mother and clearly teaching Jesus things, His sinless, loving and power-filled life was a demonstration to humanity that with God, it was possible for any human to live that same life (“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these” -John 14:12).
“Her Son’s Father is The Father”
This may sound blasphemous but please bear with me: I don’t think God was literally Jesus’ father. When I mean literally, I mean that to be a dad, you need to have a sperm cell with either an X or Y chromosome in it. God Himself doesn’t have sperm, right? He could have created it on the spot, sure, and perhaps that’s how Jesus was physically conceived. Beyond that, Jesus has always existed. He is God, is He not? So He could not literally have been begotten from God. Keep in mind, He’s existed for all eternity, and Mary got pregnant in ~4 B.C. (which is why I think the concept of her being the “Mother of God” doesn’t make much sense, though I get it as a metaphor). So He existed before she did, and He existed with God.
What makes more sense, in my opinion, is that though God may have did a miracle to cause Jesus’ birth, He was only His Father in the sense of His relationship with Jesus. I think Father and Son are more figurative words to describe the amount of intimacy between the two, as well as His dependence on God for everything.
Jesus explained that we are his children too! “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! -Matthew 7:11. The OT speaks of God this way as well:
“Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? -Deuteronomy 32:6
“And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” -Isaiah 9:6 (did you see that? The Messiah a.k.a. the “SON” would be called the “FATHER”! How can it be literal?)
“For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Thy name.” -Isaiah 63:16
“But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, We are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand.” -Isaiah 64:8
“Have you not just now called to Me, ‘My Father, Thou art the friend of my youth?’” -Jeremiah 3:4
“Then I said, ‘How I would set you among My sons, And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!’ And I said, ‘You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.’” -Jeremiah 3:19
My point is, though Jesus is more God’s son, and thus God is more is Father, than anyone else (due to His relationship with Him and the conception), I don’t see any reason to read more into it and say that God is Jesus’ lawful father and thus Mary could not commit practical adultery against her son’s father. Therefore Mary’s perpetual virginity seems just too unlikely, to me. I must again emphasize: why would God care? Why would He deprive Mary of a normal, happy marriage and the intimacy within? I suppose Mary could have been given the gift of chastity and had no desire for Joseph, but the biblical text does not indicate this, nor does it seem to hint at her perpetual virginity at all.
I do concede that her perpetual virginity is possible (though Jesus’ brothers and sisters, even though the former could mean cousin, seems quite likely to myself). And it’s honestly not a dogma for me. It could be either way and it frankly doesn’t seem to matter. It’s just that I don’t understand how the Catholic church could assert something like this with unwavering certainty despite it from an evidential standpoint being quite uncertain (unless I misunderstand and the Catholic church doesn’t claim this dogmatically, but it’s instead a non-crucial issue for catholics).
I appreciate all of your thoughts, Rusty. Your passion for the church is very apparent. God loves that about you
-Chris
@kk_grayfox - thank you for replying, and for the charitable comments at the end. thank you for your thoughts. i don’t mean to be rude when i say this, but they are just your thoughts. i know what i have been taught… yes, it seems to defy logic, but the very basics of believing in Christ seem to defy logic… and that’s the point. it takes faith to believe in what the Church teaches about Mary, or the Eucharist, or Purgatory, or whatever else… so really when i hear people saying they oppose this or that teaching or they don’t believe whatever… i just need to remind myself that those people just yet don’t understand. there a plenty of teaches i don’t understand that the Church professes… that doesn’t mean i should completely oppose the Church and schism myself from Her. i need to remind myself and others that these are matters of faith, of a willingness to believe, just as Christ always calls us to deeper faith… and so it’s not that you disagree. you’re not the final say on what Truth is. it’s merely that you don’t understand yet and someday you will. even if it’s on the day of your death. for all will be brough to light…
You’re welcome!
“but they are just your thoughts.”
I agree! Just like the catholic church’s thoughts are just its thoughts. Or any denominations thoughts are just its thoughts. I certainly think that God leads many, many, many individuals in their thoughts however, and thankfully God isn’t a God of confusion and nonsense so there’s much objectivity and logic behind who He is and what He says. At the same time, God also often (veeeerrryyyy often) defies logic, but usually in those moments its so miraculous that you’d be foolish to doubt what He’s saying and doing.
“it takes faith to believe in what the Church teaches about Mary, or the Eucharist, or Purgatory, or whatever else”
Faith should be trust in God, not trust in what a church teaches. Whenever faith is exhorted in the Bible, it’s exhorting faith in the One who is faithful, not faith in His people, nor their thoughts. So when thoughts and opinions come up (say on Mary, the Eucharist, or Purgatory), they should be discussed, debated, and rejected (or at least not firmly supported) if they don’t have any explanatory power.
If the church came up with the dogma that God’s Spirit currently resides in the Vatican and found nowhere else, shouldn’t people question that? Not just throw their hands in the air and go, “Well, if the pope said it, it must be true!” If it defies all biblical evidence, all logic, and any other evidence available (e.g. miracles happening elsewhere in the world), shouldn’t we disagree?
“i just need to remind myself that those people just yet don’t understand”
Or perhaps you don’t yet understand that these doctrines are wrong, and it’s you that has not yet understood the truth. I’m not making a blanket statement for all catholic (or any denominational) doctrines. Many (or most?) of them are probably true. Perhaps all of them are true! But what you’ve done is first assumed that they’re all true and concluded that everyone else must therefore be wrong. Maybe you’ve been actually convinced of many of them and accepted the other doctrines by default. But what you’re doing is failing to examine each and every one, scrutinizing, thinking and praying about these issues. You’ve come to the conclusion before you’ve looked at the evidence.
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” -Acts 17:11
“there a plenty of teaches i don’t understand that the Church professes… that doesn’t mean i should completely oppose the Church and schism myself from Her”
You’re absolutely correct! God values unity over whose doctrines are right and whose are wrong. He just wants to gospel spread, for people to get saved, restoring them to a relationship with God. So there’s no point in separating yourself from the church (as a whole, not just the catholic church). I differ in opinion with many Christians, but it doesn’t mean we’re not all part of the body, working towards the same goal.
“and so it’s not that you disagree. you’re not the final say on what Truth is.”
I agree! God is.
-Chris
Thank you and what a gorgeous photo.
God bless your priesthood.
@ael_ecurai -
The language for the words ‘brother and sister’ or ‘siblings’ did not have explicit words to differentiate ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ from ‘cousin.’ Therefore we are able to see that Mary has perpetual virginity; Jesus had cousins.
@living_embers -
John the Baptist being the most well known!
@Ancient_Scribe -
& according to St Matthew – St Jude was a cousin as well.
@Ancient_Scribe -
I like reading through all these comments. I get to see other view points and explanations for what we believe. I have just come to accept so many things on Faith and I know a bit about why we believe it. Personally, in terms of Mary’s ever-virginity, I take her word for it! Of course I am referring to Marian apparitions like Fatima where she introduces herself as the Virgin. Why would she be appearing to souls on earth asking for reparation and repentance to her Son, and calling herself a virgin, after 2000 years, if she were not interested in leading Souls to her Son and not to herself, or call herself a Virgin if she were not? As you can see, my understanding comes from the source herself, but it requires a faith that Mary is my Mother as well as Christ’s, and a very Catholic foundation of faith.
@living_embers -
Of course! Another point I’ve heard raised in support of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the fact that Christians have been referring to her as “the Virgin” for nearly their whole history. If she was a Virgin when Jesus was conceived and then ceased being a virgin soon after, why keep referring to her as the Virgin? Anywho, I’m glad you like reading the comments; I find them interesting myself!
Hey Brother,
Great stuff! But I wanted to comment on a couple of things that caught my attention (sorry, I didn’t expect it all to be this long):
“The Church is not a criminal organization, bent on swindling people out of money, smuggling illegal goods, or sexually abusing children. The idea that the entire Church is behind child abuse is a gross inflation, a fire that has been generously fanned by the media. The number of priests guilty of abuse is considerably small, and the number of bishops guilty of intentionally hiding these priests is even smaller. But because so many people trusted the Church so much, discovering this (in spite of its limited scope) shakes the world.”
You could claim it to be a small fire fanned on by the media, but first of all, is it really a small fire? For people who take an oat of celibacy (as supported by your first section in this blog), I don’t see how it can be seen as anything less than a huge blow to the Church, as well as everybody else who serves in it (and not just the RCC).
Also, the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) is in the spotlight way more so than any other denomination, even for so long going the distance of claiming to be the only “Church”, not even recognizing Protestant denominations as such. So with such an influence on the public, as well as such a claim, the RCC has put itself into the position where it has the responsibility of standing out and above the rest. Media may have fanned the flame, but the RCC started the fire…the media just followed the smoke. “With great power takes great responsibility”, but great influence also takes great responsibility. If you put yourself in the light in order to stand out, then expect to stand out especially when turds hit the fan.
I believe a lot of it also has to do with the way it was handled. For instance, I (unfortunately) continue to hear about Youth Pastors (most recently in Assemblies of God & Church of God congregations) having sex with their students. This is TERRIBLE, and a tragedy not only for the youth, but also for the Body of Christ. But in comparison to how it’s handled, those Youth Pastors go to jail for statutory rape and live the rest of their lives on the national sexual predator’s list, tainted and forever forbidden from serving in a church again, while the Catholic Priests simply get transfers to another church and a slap on the wrist.
Thank you for clearing up my misconception of how the RCC is run (pope vs bishops), btw. See, one of the things I tend to realize is that so many, even those who are now, or were once in the RCC, believe that the Pope is like the Emperor of the RCC. When he apologizes to the Jews about something, they recognize this as being from the whole RCC, not just the Pope. Granted it’s from his mouth, but he’s recognized as the speaker of the church and its leader. Maybe if the Church was to put back the papacy as it was before the Muslims wiped out the Byzantine Popes, thus installing several Popes around the world (again), that would help to correct the understanding? Until then, titles such as the holiest of holies, or THE holy father, etc. just add to the misunderstanding.
You said about Mary’s virginity: “since she remained a virgin even after Jesus’ birth. What helps me to understand her perpetual virginity is to look at her life in the context of marriage.”
Are you suggesting that Mary & Joseph NEVER had sex, or just that they didn’t have sex while she was pregnant with Jesus? Just curious, because scripture does agree with the latter, but tells us that Jesus had several biological (half) siblings (Matthew 12:46-47, John 7:1-5, Psalm 69:8). So Mary & Joseph did have sex after Jesus’ birth…she didn’t remain a virgin for the rest of her life.
Celibacy: As you know, this has been a hot topic for centuries. The Apostle Paul asked in a venting session once if he shouldn’t have the right to marry, since Peter and the other Apostles are. So we know that Peter and the others were married (we also know of Peter b/c of the mention of his mother in law). Both Jesus & Paul mentioned the importance and urgency of proclaiming the Gospel, and thus that having a wife and family would (or may) hinder the ministry, due to the family-responsibilities. Jesus said that such is a calling that not all can endure, and Paul suggested that such be the way (many suggest that such is because he believed Jesus was returning very soon, and so raising a family for such a short time would almost be pointless). But I’ve also found a passage in Revelation 14:4-5 “These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.” So I can see this as a reason also for accepting the life of celibacy.
“Father”: I often wondered about this, as have many that I’ve spoken to who’ve rebelled against the RCC, for Jesus told us not to call anybody on earth “father” or “master”, but only our Father who is in Heaven. I can understand the fatherly take by the priests, especially in the days of Father Bosco (he was as a father to all those street kids). But I think I’ve discovered another source to this title. While reading through 1st & 2nd Kings, I noticed that the prophets were often called “father” by their servants and kings. A footnote in one of my Bibles notes that such was the title of a spiritual guide. Priests are spiritual guides, and thus in some cultures, could be referred as such, also.
very informative… true, some traditions allow for their priests to marry, but come to think of it… i believe the vow of celibacy comes with the vow of purity… a pure soul is a better instrument for God, don’t you think? thank you for the information
@tribong_upos -
Purity is the hope for each Christian, married or otherwise, I would think! But I agree; hopefully each priest tries extra hard to be as pure as possible, and celibacy definitely helps him. Thanks for stopping by!
Hello! Yes, I am StephanieP and WildeCosette! WildeCosette is my older site, where I don’t monitor my tone whatsoever. I thought I’d make a more civil site for Revelife. Anyway, so WildeCosette is not a completely unethical plagiarist; I’m just trying to get my content out there. Haha! I can see where that caused some confusion.
Btw, According to my home page, you just posted on “The Lamb’s Supper,” but I can’t view it.
I’m thinking I’ll write on my conversion story soon, so hope you like it!
Thanks for the continued great content on your site and comments on Revelife!
@StephanieP@revelife -
Yeah that’s because I’m still working on it! I decided to try out the new beta blog thing and apparently when you click “save” it posts your blog, ready or not! So I changed it to “private” until it is finished, which should be soon!
@Pastor_AndyG -
Dear brother, thank you so much for stopping by and offering your thoughts! I’m sorry it is taking so long for me to respond to them; I am interning with the chaplains at a local hospital and it makes for a very full schedule. I am hoping to be able to make time this coming weekend for it, though who knows if a window of grace will open during some evening this week or not. God bless you for your patience!
Hey Brother, I did a full unit of Chaplaincy one summer myself. I totally understand the lack of time (or energy). I have been thinking about the conversation recently for some reason, so it’d be interesting to hear your thoughts on my comments. But use your break time or off time to rest and recoup your mindset. Chaplaincy can be a lot of fun, but it really does take its toll on ya. Get back to me when you can, but no rush.
@Pastor_AndyG -
OK, here we go!
In short, I agree with your thoughts on the abuse scandal; we do indeed claim to be the Church established by Christ, and we have an extra responsibility to live in such a manner that this may be evidenced to the world (“by their fruits you shall know them). I think, for the greater part, we do an excellent job of this. But as we have discovered time and time again throughout history, for every faithful 11 there is 1 Judas! Besides a media bias, we are indeed a city set on a mountaintop that cannot be hidden, and when someone hangs out their dirty laundry, everyone can see it for miles around. It was once, especially when things like pedophilia were not understood, that priests were simply transferred to a different parish, likely thinking that if the man is removed from the “problem,” he will be fine. Nowadays this is not the case at all, and priests found guilty are put on offender lists and kept out of public ministry, stripped of their faculties and kept under constant supervision. Young men entering into seminary are put under intense scrutiny as well, to try and determine the possibility of a problem before it begins (trust me, it is a very awkward and intense process!). So pray for the Church; it is a time of deep humility and purification.
“Maybe if the Church was to put back the papacy as it was before the Muslims wiped out the Byzantine Popes, thus installing several Popes around the world (again), that would help to correct the understanding?”
The only problem with this is that from the beginning of the Church, there was only one speaker for the Church, and that was St. Peter (once Christ was no longer on earth, that is!). Once St. Peter was killed (crucified upside down) in Rome, his successor St. Linus became the next and so on until the pope today. Granted, the full realization of the importance of the Pope’s role was something that emerged over time, but the Bishop of the Church in Rome was always looked upon for leadership in the worldwide Church. There has only ever been one pope at a time, though there was at least one time when there were three men who *claimed* to be Pope, though only one of them was legitimate.
“Are you suggesting that Mary & Joseph NEVER had sex, or just that they didn’t have sex while she was pregnant with Jesus? Just curious, because scripture does agree with the latter, but tells us that Jesus had several biological (half) siblings (Matthew 12:46-47, John 7:1-5, Psalm 69:8). So Mary & Joseph did have sex after Jesus’ birth…she didn’t remain a virgin for the rest of her life.”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying and what the Church has taught and believed since its earliest days. If this is an issue you would like to discuss separately, please feel free to message me!
Thank you for sharing your Biblical thoughts on celibacy; you definitely understand some of the basics, especially that bit from Revelations! So many pass right over it!
Regarding “Father:” Yes! You also have a good understanding of this! Priests are referred to as “father” not to take the place of God, but because they serve in a fatherly role for the Children of God and point, ultimately, to their True Father. I think of priests sort of like St. Joseph: certainly Jesus addressed him as “father” because that is who St. Joseph was in relation to the Incarnate Word. But we realize also that Christ knew who His true Father was, and there was no confusion in His heart.
Thanks for getting back to me. I’ll admit I don’t agree with all your answers, if I understood them correctly, but I did learn some things about the views and teachings (as well as history) of the RCC.