Originally Posted by reggie
Xavier, since you just won’t give it up, I will respond once again to the very lame point that Peter was married when Jesus called him.
You seem to think that this one point is enough to say that priestly celibacy is unbiblical.
ONCE AGAIN, yes Peter was married. The CC accepts into the priesthood men who are married. But they have to have been married beforethey become a priest.
*Note that Peter was married before Jesus called him and not after.
*Note also, that there is no mention of any of the Apostles marrying after they are called.
It was the practice of the church in the early times to allow both married and unmarried priests. If a priest took the vow of celibacy, he was expected to remain chaste. If a priest was married, he must have been married only once and if his wife died, he could not remarry. I notice that you make no mention of what may have happened to Peter’s wife. The Bible doesn’t mention it either. But, there is one passage where the disciples say they have left all behind. Did Peter perhaps leave his wife behind?
The point is that different Scriptures can be used to support both sides of this issue. But, after years and years, the Church came to see that it is better if her priests remain unmarried. Candidates for the priesthood understand and accept this when they begin their journey to ordination. It is such a peripheral issue, why does it bother you so much?
I notice too that you refer to yourself as an ex-Catholic. It appears from your posts, you are one of the ones who leaves and then bashes. So I guess in a way, you have answered the original question.
What I have tried to express is that Peter being married is “trump card” in this arguement. Anything a Catholic would say after this fact is brought up is lame at best, other than its within the RCC prerogative to establish the eligiblity of their priests.
Jesus, was not married. John the Baptist was not married some of the Old Testament prophets were unmarried, some were. The Old Testament priesthood was established with Aaron a married priest. All this says to me is that there can be married and unmarried men in the priesthood.
Let me clarify when I say priesthood I am refering to the office in all of Christiandom not specifically to the RCC.
My whole argument has been that it is not correct to state that the argument that priests remain celibate is biblical. I will not conceed this point.
This is moved here from another thread where it is off topic, but is a good enough question that it deserves it’s own thread. Please feel free to let the discussion fly here!