 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
what "sources other than Church" do You mean? |
Very quickly, from Thomas Groome, a Professor of Theology at Boston College:
When the Western church mandated celibacy for priests (often dated from the Second Lateran Council of 1139), it was for some noble reasons to better serve people but for some dubious ones as well: among them, concern for inheritance of church property and a negative theology of human sexuality.
and from Reverend Bruce Simpson, a Benedictine:
Celibacy was initiated in the Roman Church to protect the land and buildings owned by the Church. Rome feared the loss of its assets through inheritance of property by the wives and children of its Priests when the Priest died. This is about the wealth of the Church and its various holdings in real estate. Around this move for celibacy was created a doctrine declaring that to give up sex is a gift to God. I do believe that in some cases, men and woman of faith in the clergy do make the sacrifice of their sexuality as a pure and pious act to God, and that deserves to be recognized as such. However, the justification for enforced celibacy is that it allows the Priest to serve the people more effectively, and to enable him to love all of the people instead of just one does not hold water for me. It makes for many lonely Priests who lack a true understanding of what it means to be in a relationship with another person. This enables a lack of understanding of the pressures, problems, and difficulties that are encountered in a marriage or relationship. Not all can be learned from books.
quote:
And kings were never head of the church |
Um... of course they were... the Holy Roman Emperor was the person on top of the Church in that area. He was the one who invested the bishops with their regalia. He was the one who appointed religious officials. The King of England appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the clergy.
Why do you think the Papal Revolution came about? Why do you think Gregory VII and the Cluniacs came up with the slogan of "Freedom of the Church"? Why do you think it was also called the Investiture Crisis?
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 02-02-2005 at 03:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Weren't that supposed to be SOURCES, not modern books? |
Historical scholarship is more accurate than the biased texts at the time.
quote:
Also, celibacy was a rule ammongst earlier monastic movements. Do You think it was a way to inherit something as well? |
And yet, it was quickly rendered aside. Orthodox still don't prohibit marriage by the priests. By 1100s, many clerics had marriages, concubines, and children running all around to the point it became an epidemic.
quote:
When it comes to the second part, it's about the name, not the meaning. I'm opposing the term "head of church", not the information You're trying to convey by it. |
Why? When you control something, I think calling yourself the head is apt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:
1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher
1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:
1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher
1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses. |
"one wife" is the church.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The early Christian church allowed married priests for centuries. Celibacy for the clergy came later.
|
Compulsory celibacy - yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Boshko
Matthew 19:12 - For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. |
Don't make me laugh. "making oneself eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake" is celibacy.
Don't take everything literal.
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Herreson:
Celibacy is not part of Catholic Dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church does have married priests who are part of the Eastern Rites(the Eastern Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox). The Roman Rite also has married priests in the case of Anglican priests who were married and then converted to Catholicism.
Rather, it is a matter of discpline that can be changed freely by the pope, kept in place because it is believed that celibacy is good for the priesthood in that it allows priests to be fully dedicated to their ministry, whereas if they were married they would have to place their families first. |
I do not think celibacy is essential in catholicism, but I am eternally suprised by those who think establishing of compulsory celibacy had (only) economic roots.
Sex was treated then as something dirty, even sex with your wife You had to confess to a priest, even that was a sin.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Weren't that supposed to be SOURCES, not modern books? |
Historical scholarship is more accurate than the biased texts at the time.
|
Not necessarily...
Also, what do those modern books base their claims, if the sources say something different?
quote:
And yet, it was quickly rendered aside. Orthodox still don't prohibit marriage by the priests. By 1100s, many clerics had marriages, concubines, and children running all around to the point it became an epidemic.
|
And? It doesn't change the fact that many considered it wrong, and that celibacy was seen as something noble.
quote:
Why? When you control something, I think calling yourself the head is apt. |
Not in this case. Because the top of the hierarchy was pope all the time, and by saying that kings were the "heads of the church" You're making false impression it was not so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Not necessarily...
Also, what do those modern books base their claims, if the sources say something different? |
It looks as the historical record. Not just the sources of changes in canon law, but also people writing about what was going on at the time. People commenting on canon, etc, and puting it all together.
quote:
And? It doesn't change the fact that many considered it wrong, and that celibacy was seen as something noble. |
Many considered it wrong? Then why was it so widespread? Not like they were hiding that they had wives?
quote:
Not in this case. Because the top of the hierarchy was pope all the time, and by saying that kings were the "heads of the church" You're making false impression it was not so. |
Um... it's not a false impression.. the Pope was NOT top of the hierarchy at the time, because, frankly, there was no heirarchy of all church members. The Emperor was the one who was in charge. He was the one making all the determinations of who was a bishop or priest. The Pope was simply a first among equals among Cardinals. The King was charge of the church in each country.
It wasn't until Gregory VII that the Pope started asserting that he was head of the entire church. Before this period, the EMPEROR was called the Vicar of Christ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
It looks as the historical record. Not just the sources of changes in canon law, but also people writing about what was going on at the time. People commenting on canon, etc, and puting it all together.
|
So, gimme some.
quote:
Many considered it wrong? Then why was it so widespread?
|
Because many did not.
And some were overcomen by their desire
quote:
Um... it's not a false impression.. the Pope was NOT top of the hierarchy at the time, because, frankly, there was no heirarchy of all church members. The Emperor was the one who was in charge. He was the one making all the determinations of who was a bishop or priest. The Pope was simply a first among equals among Cardinals. The King was charge of the church in each country.
It wasn't until Gregory VII that the Pope started asserting that he was head of the entire church. Before this period, the EMPEROR was called the Vicar of Christ. |
"first among equals among Cardinals"
No hierarchy?
Oh please...
The rulers nominated whom they wished,
true, but the rest is simply not true.
Really.
Do You even know what cardinals are?
Do You know what patriarchates are?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
I gave you a few articles referencing those sources, both by Catholic priests.
quote:
Because many did not.
And some were overcomen by their desire |
But it was so widespread. It wasn't just a few bad apples but everyone.
quote:
"first among equals among Cardinals"
No hierarchy?
Oh please...
The rulers nominated whom they wished,
true, but the rest is simply not true.
Really.
Do You even know what cardinals are?
Do You know what patriarchates are? |
Yes, I do. And obviously, you've bought in Catholic propoganda hook, line, and sinker. After Constantine took Christianity and Theodosius made it state religion, the Emperor was the head of the church and directly elected by God. There was no heirarchy leading to the Pope, it lead to the King, who had the direct pathway to Christ.
Charlemagne, for example, called Church councils and made Church law. He regarded Leo II as his personal chaplain and even told Leo II that the King's business was to govern and defend the Church and its the Pope's duty to pray for it.
The laws of Ethelred in England said "A Christian king is Christ's deputy among the Christian people and he must avenge with utmost diligence offenses against Christ". It was the KING who was Christ's deputy, not the Pope.
For more stuff, see "Law and Revolution" by Harold Berman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I gave you a few articles referencing those sources, both by Catholic priests.
|
I hoped for some proofs, not modern surmisions
quote:
But it was so widespread. It wasn't just a few bad apples but everyone.
|
not everyone. And I didn't claim that these were just a few bad apples. If it was so, it would have been easy.
quote:
Yes, I do. And obviously, you've bought in Catholic propoganda hook, line, and sinker. After Constantine took Christianity and Theodosius made it state religion, the Emperor was the head of the church and directly elected by God. There was no heirarchy leading to the Pope, it lead to the King, who had the direct pathway to Christ.
Charlemagne, for example, called Church councils and made Church law. He regarded Leo II as his personal chaplain and even told Leo II that the King's business was to govern and defend the Church and its the Pope's duty to pray for it.
The laws of Ethelred in England said "A Christian king is Christ's deputy among the Christian people and he must avenge with utmost diligence offenses against Christ". It was the KING who was Christ's deputy, not the Pope.
For more stuff, see "Law and Revolution" by Harold Berman. |
You're just making bad conclusions out of true information.
The hierarchy of the church, with patriarchs as their leaders, never ceased to exist, bah, it was finally established on synnodes which were, as You say, called by emperors. Emperors were powerfull figures within the church, but aside from the hierarchy.
Do You really believe that papacy is only invention of gregorian reforms? That it looked like dozens of post-reformation Englands?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:
1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher
1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.
|
"one wife" is the church.
|
If you see these sentences alone,
you might come this conclusion,
that wife might be "the church"
But the letter to Timothy goes on:
3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
3:5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
These sentences make a clear distinction between the own household of the bishop (and his own children, he is supposed to have) and the church.
Most Theologist AFAIK interpret these part of the epistle as a condemnation of polygamy,
meaning that Paulus (or whoever wrote the epistle) says that bishops and deacons shouldn´t be men who have been married to several women (or who got divorced and then again been married) but only once.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
I hoped for some proofs, not modern surmisions |
 I'm sure you'll just toss every book I reference as being biased or not right and believe what Catholic dogma will indoctrinate you with.
quote:
not everyone. And I didn't claim that these were just a few bad apples. If it was so, it would have been easy. |
Not everyone, but it seemed like it was condoned by just about everyone. Only certain sects were appauled by it and many practiced it, indicating that a lot of people did not consider it immoral.
quote:
You're just making bad conclusions out of true information.
The hierarchy of the church, with patriarchs as their leaders, never ceased to exist, bah, it was finally established on synnodes which were, as You say, called by emperors. Emperors were powerfull figures within the church, but aside from the hierarchy.
Do You really believe that papacy is only invention of gregorian reforms? That it looked like dozens of post-reformation Englands? |
No, I'm making TRUE conclusions out of true facts. The Papacy, as it is now, is indeed the invention of the monk Hildenbrand (aka, Gregory VII). The Anglican Church is actually a good analogy. Before the Papal Revolution, that is how Christianity looked, with the King as head of the Church. READ the histories of Charlemagne, or Alfred the Great in England. They controlled the Church and they considered themselves the heads of the Church. What do you think the slogan "freedom of the church" meant? It meant freedom from the King, who was the head of the Church in each state at the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
I'm sure you'll just toss every book I reference as being biased or not right and believe what Catholic dogma will indoctrinate you with.
|
While You'll call everything catholic propaganda 
quote:
No, I'm making TRUE conclusions out of true facts. The Papacy, as it is now, is indeed the invention of the monk Hildenbrand (aka, Gregory VII). The Anglican Church is actually a good analogy. Before the Papal Revolution, that is how Christianity looked, with the King as head of the Church. READ the histories of Charlemagne, or Alfred the Great in England. They controlled the Church and they considered themselves the heads of the Church. What do you think the slogan "freedom of the church" meant? It meant freedom from the King, who was the head of the Church in each state at the time. |
You're exagerrating.
Tell me again: did the patriarchates cease to exist?
Didn't archdioceses and missonary dioceses fall under papal obediance?
Why pope was needed to allow coronation in kingdoms like Poland? Why establishing new dioceses needed papal sanction?
I do not deny that medieval rulers practically ruled the church, but as I suspected, You see it through protestant/anglican history, and that's a big misconception.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2005 02:37
|