Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Clerical celibacy.. ma i holy WOW ??.. or Now
Clerical celibacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clerical celibacy is the discipline by which some or all members of the clergy in certain religions are required to be unmarried. Since these religions consider sinful deliberate sexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior outside of marriage, clerical celibacy also requires abstension from these.[1] In the Latin Catholic Church, clerical celibacy is mandated for bishops and, as a general rule, for priests and for deacons who intend to become priests. In Eastern Christianity, celibacy is mandatory for all bishops and for any priest who has been ordained while unmarried or who has lost his wife.
Contents [hide]
1 Meanings of "celibacy"
2 Background
3 Clerical continence in Christianity
3.1 First century
3.2 Second and third centuries
3.3 Fourth century
3.4 Fifth to seventh centuries
3.5 Eleventh and twelfth centuries
3.6 Sixteenth century
4 Rules
5 Modern Roman Catholic Church
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Meanings of "celibacy"
The word "celibacy" can mean either the state of being unmarried or abstinence, especially because of religious vows, from sexual intercourse.[2][3] The latter meaning corresponds to that of the word "continence" when used with regard to sexual activity.[4][5]
In the canon law of the Latin Church, the word "celibacy" is used specifically in the sense of being unmarried. However, for its clergy this state of being unmarried is considered to be a consequence of the obligation to be completely and perpetually continent:
Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.[6]
Permanent deacons, namely those deacons who are not intended to become priests, are, in general, exempted from this rule.[7] But married permanent deacons are not allowed to remarry after the death of their spouse.[8]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.[9]
[edit] Background
In some Christian churches, priests and bishops must remain unmarried, while in others, married men may be ordained as deacons or priests, but may not remarry if their wife dies. Since celibacy is seen as a consequence of the obligation of continence, it implies abstinence from sexual or romantic relationships. The Code of Canon Law prescribes:
Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.[10]
In some Christian churches, a vow of chastity is made by members of religious orders or monastic communities, along with vows of poverty and obedience, in order to imitate the life of Jesus of Nazareth, see also Evangelical counsels. This vow of chastity, made by people not all of whom are clergy, is different from what is the obligation, not a vow, of clerical continence and celibacy
Celibacy not only for religious and monastics (brothers/monks and sisters/nuns) but also for bishops is upheld by both the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christian traditions. In Latin Rite Catholicism, all priests must be celibate men, unless given special permission; but in most Orthodox traditions and in some Eastern Catholic Churches men who are already married may be ordained priests, but priests may not marry, whether for the first or second time, while bishops must be unmarried men or widowers. No Bishop is permitted to be married.
Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox tradition considers the rule of clerical celibacy to be an unchangeable dogma, but instead as a rule that could be adjusted if the Church thought it appropriate.
Christian churches forbid castration, and the alleged self-castration of the theologian Origen was used to discredit him.
[edit] Clerical continence in Christianity
See also: Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)
[edit] First century
It is undisputed that the earliest Christian leaders were very largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (at least at some point, possibly widowed). In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul the Apostle indicates that he was unmarried: either single or a widower.[11] In 1 Corinthians 9:5 he contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles who were accompanied by believing wives. Martin Luther held that the "loyal yokefellow" of Philippians 4:3 was Paul's wife,[12] an idea already found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 30, which says Paul did not take his wife about with him "that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry".
Some hold that married men who became clergy were expected to live in complete continence, refraining permanently from sexual relations with their wives.[13][14][15] They also conclude that, because of the exclusion of sexual relations, the members of the clergy were even then not entitled to marry.
In the New Testament, while 1 Corinthians 7:32–33 ("The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife") is a locus classicus used in favour of sacerdotal celibacy, the statement in 1 Timothy 3:2–4 that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife" and "one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection" indicates that at that time married men could indeed become clergy. One interpretation of "the husband of one wife" is that the man to be ordained could not have been married more than once.[16]
1 Timothy 4:1–5shows that Paul felt a "forbidding to marry" would result in a "depart[ing] from the faith".[citation needed]
The 4th-century Church Fathers Ambrose and Jerome pointed out that the passage in 1 Timothy did not conflict with the discipline they knew, whereby a married man who became a bishop was to abstain from sexual relations and not marry again: "He speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again";[17] "He does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife, and has his children in subjection and well disciplined. You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer."[18]
According to Epiphanius of Salamis, also of the 4th century, Nicholas, one of the Seven Deacons of Acts 6:1–6, noticed others being admired for their celibacy. To avoid seeming immoderately devoted to his beautiful wife and therefore inferior in his ministry, he renounced conjugal intercourse forever. While he was able to remain continent for a while, eventually his burning desire overpowered him. However, he did not want to be regarded as inconsistent or seen as taking his oath lightly. Instead of returning to his wife, he engaged in promiscuous sex and what Epiphanius termed "sex practices against nature". In this way, he started Nicolaism, an antinomian heresy which believed that as long as they abstained from marriage, it was not a sin to exercise their sexual desires as they pleased. Revelation 2:6 and 15 expresses hatred for the "works of the Nicolaitans".[19]
[edit] Second and third centuries
The North African Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), writing of the apostles, indicated that he was obliged to believe that apart from Peter, who was certainly married, the apostles were continent.[20] In his De praescriptione contra haereticos, Tertullian mentioned continence as one of the customs in Mithraism that he claimed were imitated from Christianity, but does not associate it specifically with the clergy.[21]
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the 3rd century,[22] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made "whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God".[23]
There is record of a number of 3rd-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l'Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne.[24] No statement is made about whether they had children after becoming bishops or only before.
[edit] Fourth century
The 4th century saw instances in the West of canonical enactment of penalties for members of the clergy who did not observe continence.
The earliest known is that of the Council of Elvira (c. 306):
Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.[25]
In 387 or 390, or according to others in 400, a Council of Carthage decreed that bishops, priests and deacons abstain from conjugal relations, in accordance with a tradition dating from the Apostles:
It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep... It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.[26]
Clerical continence is said to be of apostolic origin also in the Directa Decretal of Pope Siricius (10 February 385):
We have indeed discovered that many priests and deacons of Christ brought children into the world, either through union with their wives or through shameful intercourse. And they used as an excuse the fact that in the Old Testament—as we can read—priests and ministers were permitted to beget children. Whatever the case may be, if one of these disciples of the passions and tutors of vices thinks that the Lord—in the law of Moses—gives an indistinct license to those in sacred Orders so that they may satisfy their passions, let him tell me now: why does [the Lord] warn those who had the custody of the most holy things in the following way: "You must make yourselves holy, for I am Yahweh your God" (Lev 20:7). Likewise, why were the priests ordered, during the year of their tour of duty, to live in the temple, away from their homes? Quite obviously so that they would not be able to have carnal knowledge of any woman, even their wives, and, thus, having a conscience radiating integrity, they could offer to God offerings worthy of his acceptance. Those men, once they had fulfilled their time of service, were permitted to have marital intercourse for the sole purpose of ensuring their descent, because no one except [the members] of the tribe of Levi could be admitted to the divine ministry.[27]
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (315–68), a Doctor of the Church, was a married bishop and had a daughter named Apra, who was baptized together with her father, when he and his wife became Christians. Among Popes of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, the father of Pope Damasus I (366–84) was a bishop. Pope Felix III (483–92), whose father was almost certainly a priest, was the great-great-grandfather of Pope Gregory I the Great (590–604). Pope Hormisdas (514–23) was the father of Pope Silverius (536–37).[24] No statement is given on whether, among these, the children in question were born when their fathers were still laymen.
Thus, in the West, during the patristic era and into the early Middle Ages, clerical celibacy (i.e. being unmarried) was not in force; but a cleric was obliged by canon law and, it was claimed, by a custom dating from the Apostles, to be continent and have no sexual relations even with his wife.
As for the East, the Greek ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Sozomen, who wrote a century after the event, reported that the First Council of Nicaea (325) considered ordering all married clergy to refrain from conjugal relations, but the Council was dissuaded by Paphnutius of Thebes.[28]
According to Sozomen's history:
While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion.[29]
The Council of Nicaea, AD 325, decides in Canon 3:
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion[30]
The term "subintroducta" refers to an unmarried woman living in association with a man in a merely spiritual marriage, a practice that seems to have existed already in the time of Hermas; in the 4th century such a woman was also referred to as an "agapeta".[31][32] Stefan Heid has argued that the pre-Nicaean acceptance of that arrangement for clerics was an indication that the clergy were expected to live in continence even with their wives.[33]
A leading participant in the Council, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote: "It is fitting that |those in the priesthood and occupied in the service of God, should abstain after ordination from the intercourse of marriage."[34]
Epiphanius of Salamis (died 403) accused the heretics whom he called "Purists" of "mixing up everyone's duty":
They have assumed that what is enjoined upon the priesthood because of the priesthood's preeminence applies equally to everyone. They have heard, "The bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, continent; likewise the deacon and the presbyter", but not understood the limitation of the ordinances. … She (God's holy church) does not accept the husband of one wife if he is still co-habiting with her and fathering children. She does accept the abstinent husband of one wife, or the widower, as a deacon, presbyter, bishop and subdeacon, [but no other married men], particularly where the canons of the church are strictly observed. But in some places, you will surely tell me, presbyters, deacons and sub-deacons are still fathering children [while exercising their office.] This is not canonical, but is due to men's occasional remissness of purpose, and because there is no one to serve the congregation.[35]
Similar evidence of the existence in the 4th-century East, as in the West, of a rule or at least an ideal of clerical continence that was considered to be canonical is found in Epiphanius's Panarion, 48, 9 and Expositio Fidei, 21. Synesius (died c. 414), who refused to be bound by the obligation, knew that, if made a bishop, he was expected to live in continence with his wife.[36] One of the accusations against Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus, in his trial before John Chrysostom was that "after separating from his married wife, he had taken her again".[37] In his note on this phrase, the translator Herbert Moore says: "According to the 'Apostolic Canons', only the lower orders of clergy were allowed to marry after their appointment to office; the Council in Trullo ordered that a bishop's wife should retire to a convent, or become a deaconess; that of Caesarea, that if a priest marries after ordination he must be degraded. For Antoninus to resume relations with his wife was equivalent to marriage after ordination. It was proposed at the Council of Nicaea that married clergy should be compelled to separate from their wives, but the proposal was rejected; though it was generally held that the relations of bishops with their wives should be those of brother and sister."
[edit] Fifth to seventh centuries
In saying that "in certain provinces it is permitted to the readers and singers to marry",[38] of the Council of Chalcedon (451) suggests that, in other provinces, not only bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons, but even those in the lower orders of readers and singers were at that time not permitted to marry.
Needless to say, the rule or ideal of clerical continence was not always observed either in the West or in the East, and it was because of violations that it was from time to time affirmed. Emperor Justinian I (died 565) ordered that the children of priests, deacons and subdeacons who, "in disregard of the sacred canons, have children by women with whom, according to sacerdotal regulation, they may not cohabit" be considered illegitimate on the same level as those "procreated in incest and in nefarious nuptials".[39] As for bishops, he forbade "any one to be ordained bishop who has children or grandchildren".[40]
Canon 13 of the Quinisext Council (Constantinople, 692) shows that by that time there was a direct contradiction between the ideas of East and West about the legitimacy of conjugal relations on the part of clergy lower than the rank of bishop who had married before being ordained:
Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence.[41]
The canon mistakenly claims that the canon of the late-4th-century Council of Carthage quoted above excluded conjugal intercourse by clergy lower than bishops only in connection with their liturgical service or in times of fasting. The Council of Carthage excluded such intercourse perpetually and made no distinction between bishops, priests and deacons.[42]
There have been no changes since then in the discipline of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which for bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons excludes marriage after ordination, but allows, except for periods before celebrating the Divine Liturgy, conjugal relations by priests and deacons married before ordination, and requires celibacy and perpetual continence only of bishops.
[edit] Eleventh and twelfth centuries
In 888, two local councils, that of Metz and that of Mainz, prohibited cohabitation even with wives living in continence. This tendency was taken up by the 11th century Gregorian Reform, which aimed at eliminating what it called "Nicolaitism",[43] that is clerical marriage, which in spite of being theoretically excluded was in fact practised,[44] and concubinage.
The First Lateran Council (1123), a General Council, adopted the following canons:
Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.
Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.[45]
The phrase "contract marriage" in the first part of canon 21 excludes clerical marriages, and the marriages that the second part says must be dissolved may possibly be such marriages, contracted after ordination, not before. Canon 3 makes reference to a rule made at the First Council of Nicaea (see above), which is understood as not forbidding a cleric to live in the same house with a wife whom he married before being ordained.
Sixteen years later, the Second Lateran Council (1139), in which some five hundred bishops took part, enacted the following canons:
Canon 6: We also decree that those who in the subdiaconate and higher orders have contracted marriage or have concubines, be deprived of their office and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they indulge in marriage and in impurities.
Canon 7: Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban, and Paschal, we command that no one attend the masses of those who are known to have wives or concubines. But that the law of continence and purity, so pleasing to God, may become more general among persons constituted in sacred orders, we decree that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks, and professed clerics (conversi) who, transgressing the holy precept, have dared to contract marriage, shall be separated. For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony. Those who have been separated from each other, shall do penance commensurate with such excesses.[46]
This Council thus declared clerical marriages not only illicit though valid, as before, but invalid ("we do not regard as matrimony"). The marriages in question are, again, those contracted by men who already are "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed clerics". And later legislation, found especially in the Quinque Compilationes Antiquae and the Decretals of Gregory IX, continued to deal with questions concerning married men who were ordained legally. In 1322 Pope John XXII insisted that no one bound in marriage—even if unconsummated—could be ordained unless there was full knowledge of the requirements of Church law. If the free consent of the wife had not been obtained, the husband, even if already ordained, was to be reunited with his wife, exercise of his ministry being barred. Accordingly, the assumption that a wife might not want to give up her marital rights may have been one of the factors contributing to the eventual universal practice in the Latin Church of ordaining only unmarried men.[47]
However, although the decrees of the Second Council of the Lateran might still be interpreted in the older sense of prohibiting marriage only after ordination, they came to be understood as absolute prohibitions, and, while the fact of being married was formally made a canonical impediment to ordination only with the 1917 Code of Canon Law,[48] the prohibition of marriage for all clerics in major orders began to be taken simply for granted.[24] The Second Lateran Council is thus often cited as having for the first time introduced a general law of celibacy, requiring ordination only of unmarried men.
[edit] Sixteenth century
While the 11th century Gregorian Reform 's campaign against clerical marriage and concubinage met strong opposition,[49] by the time of the Second Lateran Council it had won widespread support from lay and ecclesiastical leaders.
New opposition appeared in connection with the Protestant Reformation, not only on the part of the Reformers, but also among churchmen and others who remained in union with the see of Rome. Figures such as Panormitanus, Erasmus, Thomas Cajetan, and the Holy Roman Emperors Charles V, Ferdinand I and Maximilian II argued against it.
In practice, the discipline of clerical continence meant by then that only unmarried men were ordained. Thus, in the discussions that took place, no distinction was made between clerical continence and clerical celibacy.
The Reformers made abolition of clerical continence and celibacy a key element in their reform. They denounced it as opposed to the New Testament recommendation that a cleric should be "the husband of one wife" (see on 1 Timothy 3:2–4 above), the declared right of the apostles to take around with them a believing Christian as a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5) and the admonition, "Marriage should be honoured by all" (Hebrews 13:4). They blamed it for widespread sexual misconduct among the clergy.[50]
Against the long-standing tradition of the Church in the East as well as in the West, which excluded marriage after ordination, Zwingli married in 1522, Luther in 1525, and Calvin in 1539. And against what had also become, though seemingly at a later date, a tradition in both East and West, the married Thomas Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533.
The Council of Trent considered the matter and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage after ordination was invalid: "If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able" (canon 9).
It also decreed, concerning the relative dignity of marriage and celibacy: "If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."[51]
[edit] Rules
Rules on celibacy differ between different religious traditions and churches:
In Latin-Rite (Western) Catholic churches, married men may (since the time of the Second Vatican Council in 1965) be ordained deacons, but may not be ordained priests or bishops, nor may one marry after ordination. Since the start of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant ministers or Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent. The Roman Catholic Church considers Protestant and most Anglican ordinations invalid, while recognizing Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglican ordinations as valid. In some cases, laicized Catholic priests are allowed to marry by special dispensation. Additionally, dispensations can be granted for deacons whose wives have died to marry a second time.
In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches (which latter are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained to any order except as bishops, and one may not marry after ordination as a subdeacon. The Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East follow the same rules that hold in the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the exception of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which permits ordained deacons to marry. While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives' maintenance, for example Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife.
Churches of the Anglican Communion have no restrictions on the marriage of deacons, priests, bishops, or other ministers. Early Anglican Church clergy under Henry VIII were required to be celibate (see 6 Articles), but the requirement was eliminated by Edward VI. Some Anglo-Catholic priestly orders require their members to remain celibate, as do orders of all brothers and sisters.
Most Protestant traditions have no restrictions on the marriage of ministers or other clergy, except that in some circles divorced persons may not serve as pastors, and in practice the majority of pastors are married.
In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormon tradition, all worthy males can receive a priesthood office beginning with that of deacon at age 12. Regardless of whether they receive a calling to the priesthood, strict abstinence from all sexual behavior is universally applied to all men (and women) until they marry. Gay men must always be celibate and continent. Priesthood may be suspended in the event of unchaste conduct. Generally, only married men are called to be bishops (who preside over local congregations designated as wards) and to higher offices.
Judaism has no history of celibacy for its leaders, rabbis or kohens. Before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, priests, kohens, and Levites were required to practice continence (abstain from sexual intercourse with their wife) before and during their time of service at the temple. They were permitted to resume marital relations after completing their service. Some community functions are, as a rule, filled only by married men. Additionally, as in Islam, marriage is encouraged for everyone.
In Islam, lifelong celibacy or monasticism is forbidden. Marriage is encouraged for everyone.
The traditions of monasticism within Buddhism require celibacy. Several cultures, however, have revised this and now have forms of married lay teachers, who are distinct from the celibate clergy.
[edit] Modern Roman Catholic Church
See main article: Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church).
Celibacy is represented in the Roman Catholic Church as having apostolic authority. Theologically, the Church desires to imitate the life of Jesus with regard to chastity and the sacrifice of married life for the "sake of the Kingdom" (Luke 18:28–30, Matthew 19:27–30; Mark 10:20–21), and to follow the example of Jesus Christ in being "married" to the Church, viewed by Catholicism and many Christian traditions as the "Bride of Christ". Also of importance are the teachings of St. Paul that chastity is the superior state of life, and his desire expressed in I Corinthians 7:7–8, "I would that all men were even as myself [celibate]—but every one has his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."
Practically speaking, the reasons for celibacy are given by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 7:7–8; 32–35: "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment."
I Corinthians 9:5 is sometimes cited by those opposed to celibacy, as the verse is often rendered as referring to the Apostles carrying "wives" with them. However, the Greek word for "wife" is the same word for "woman". The Early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine state the Greek word is ambiguous and the women in I Corinthians 9:5 were women ministering to the Apostles as women ministered to Christ (cf. Luke 8:1–3), and were not wives.[52] They even went as far as to assert they left their "offices of marriage" to follow Christ and to preach.[53]
Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life. However the first pope, St. Peter, as well as many subsequent popes, bishops, and priests during the church's first 270 years were in fact married men, and often fathers. The practice of clerical continence, along with a prohibition of marriage by men once they were ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, is traceable from the time of the Council of Elvira. This law was reinforced in the Directa Decretal (385) and at the Council of Carthage in 390. The tradition of clerical continence developed into a practice of clerical celibacy (ordaining only unmarried men) from the 11th century onward among Latin Rite Catholics and became a formal part of canon law in 1917. This law of clerical celibacy does not apply to Eastern Catholics. Until recently, the Eastern Catholic bishops of North America would generally ordain only unmarried men, for fear that married priests would create scandal. Since Vatican II's call for the restoration of Eastern Catholic traditions, a number of bishops have returned to the traditional practice of ordaining married men to the presbyterate. Bishops are still celibate and normally chosen from the ranks of monks.
In the Latin Rite exceptions are sometimes made. After the Second Vatican Council a general exception was made for the ordination as deacons of men of at least thirty-five years of age who are not intended to be ordained later as priests and whose wives consent to their ordination.[54] Since the time of Pope Pius XII individual exceptions are sometimes made for former non-Catholic clergymen. Under the rules proposed for personal ordinariates for former Anglicans, the ordinary may request the Pope to grant authorization, on a case-by-case basis, for admission to ordination in the Catholic Church of married former Anglican clergy (see Personal ordinariate#Married former Anglican clergy and rules on celibacy).
Because the rule of clerical celibacy is a law and not a doctrine, exceptions can be made, and it can, in principle, be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, both the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and his predecessor, spoke clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice is unlikely to change.
[edit] See also
Clerical marriage practice of marriage after ordination.
MacTaggart, Scottish surname which originally meant "son of the priest"
[edit] Notes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clerical celibacy is the discipline by which some or all members of the clergy in certain religions are required to be unmarried. Since these religions consider sinful deliberate sexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior outside of marriage, clerical celibacy also requires abstension from these.[1] In the Latin Catholic Church, clerical celibacy is mandated for bishops and, as a general rule, for priests and for deacons who intend to become priests. In Eastern Christianity, celibacy is mandatory for all bishops and for any priest who has been ordained while unmarried or who has lost his wife.
Contents [hide]
1 Meanings of "celibacy"
2 Background
3 Clerical continence in Christianity
3.1 First century
3.2 Second and third centuries
3.3 Fourth century
3.4 Fifth to seventh centuries
3.5 Eleventh and twelfth centuries
3.6 Sixteenth century
4 Rules
5 Modern Roman Catholic Church
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Meanings of "celibacy"
The word "celibacy" can mean either the state of being unmarried or abstinence, especially because of religious vows, from sexual intercourse.[2][3] The latter meaning corresponds to that of the word "continence" when used with regard to sexual activity.[4][5]
In the canon law of the Latin Church, the word "celibacy" is used specifically in the sense of being unmarried. However, for its clergy this state of being unmarried is considered to be a consequence of the obligation to be completely and perpetually continent:
Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.[6]
Permanent deacons, namely those deacons who are not intended to become priests, are, in general, exempted from this rule.[7] But married permanent deacons are not allowed to remarry after the death of their spouse.[8]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.[9]
[edit] Background
In some Christian churches, priests and bishops must remain unmarried, while in others, married men may be ordained as deacons or priests, but may not remarry if their wife dies. Since celibacy is seen as a consequence of the obligation of continence, it implies abstinence from sexual or romantic relationships. The Code of Canon Law prescribes:
Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.[10]
In some Christian churches, a vow of chastity is made by members of religious orders or monastic communities, along with vows of poverty and obedience, in order to imitate the life of Jesus of Nazareth, see also Evangelical counsels. This vow of chastity, made by people not all of whom are clergy, is different from what is the obligation, not a vow, of clerical continence and celibacy
Celibacy not only for religious and monastics (brothers/monks and sisters/nuns) but also for bishops is upheld by both the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christian traditions. In Latin Rite Catholicism, all priests must be celibate men, unless given special permission; but in most Orthodox traditions and in some Eastern Catholic Churches men who are already married may be ordained priests, but priests may not marry, whether for the first or second time, while bishops must be unmarried men or widowers. No Bishop is permitted to be married.
Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox tradition considers the rule of clerical celibacy to be an unchangeable dogma, but instead as a rule that could be adjusted if the Church thought it appropriate.
Christian churches forbid castration, and the alleged self-castration of the theologian Origen was used to discredit him.
[edit] Clerical continence in Christianity
See also: Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)
[edit] First century
It is undisputed that the earliest Christian leaders were very largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (at least at some point, possibly widowed). In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul the Apostle indicates that he was unmarried: either single or a widower.[11] In 1 Corinthians 9:5 he contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles who were accompanied by believing wives. Martin Luther held that the "loyal yokefellow" of Philippians 4:3 was Paul's wife,[12] an idea already found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 30, which says Paul did not take his wife about with him "that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry".
Some hold that married men who became clergy were expected to live in complete continence, refraining permanently from sexual relations with their wives.[13][14][15] They also conclude that, because of the exclusion of sexual relations, the members of the clergy were even then not entitled to marry.
In the New Testament, while 1 Corinthians 7:32–33 ("The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife") is a locus classicus used in favour of sacerdotal celibacy, the statement in 1 Timothy 3:2–4 that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife" and "one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection" indicates that at that time married men could indeed become clergy. One interpretation of "the husband of one wife" is that the man to be ordained could not have been married more than once.[16]
1 Timothy 4:1–5shows that Paul felt a "forbidding to marry" would result in a "depart[ing] from the faith".[citation needed]
The 4th-century Church Fathers Ambrose and Jerome pointed out that the passage in 1 Timothy did not conflict with the discipline they knew, whereby a married man who became a bishop was to abstain from sexual relations and not marry again: "He speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again";[17] "He does not say: Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children; but who marries one wife, and has his children in subjection and well disciplined. You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer."[18]
According to Epiphanius of Salamis, also of the 4th century, Nicholas, one of the Seven Deacons of Acts 6:1–6, noticed others being admired for their celibacy. To avoid seeming immoderately devoted to his beautiful wife and therefore inferior in his ministry, he renounced conjugal intercourse forever. While he was able to remain continent for a while, eventually his burning desire overpowered him. However, he did not want to be regarded as inconsistent or seen as taking his oath lightly. Instead of returning to his wife, he engaged in promiscuous sex and what Epiphanius termed "sex practices against nature". In this way, he started Nicolaism, an antinomian heresy which believed that as long as they abstained from marriage, it was not a sin to exercise their sexual desires as they pleased. Revelation 2:6 and 15 expresses hatred for the "works of the Nicolaitans".[19]
[edit] Second and third centuries
The North African Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), writing of the apostles, indicated that he was obliged to believe that apart from Peter, who was certainly married, the apostles were continent.[20] In his De praescriptione contra haereticos, Tertullian mentioned continence as one of the customs in Mithraism that he claimed were imitated from Christianity, but does not associate it specifically with the clergy.[21]
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the 3rd century,[22] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made "whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God".[23]
There is record of a number of 3rd-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l'Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne.[24] No statement is made about whether they had children after becoming bishops or only before.
[edit] Fourth century
The 4th century saw instances in the West of canonical enactment of penalties for members of the clergy who did not observe continence.
The earliest known is that of the Council of Elvira (c. 306):
Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.[25]
In 387 or 390, or according to others in 400, a Council of Carthage decreed that bishops, priests and deacons abstain from conjugal relations, in accordance with a tradition dating from the Apostles:
It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep... It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.[26]
Clerical continence is said to be of apostolic origin also in the Directa Decretal of Pope Siricius (10 February 385):
We have indeed discovered that many priests and deacons of Christ brought children into the world, either through union with their wives or through shameful intercourse. And they used as an excuse the fact that in the Old Testament—as we can read—priests and ministers were permitted to beget children. Whatever the case may be, if one of these disciples of the passions and tutors of vices thinks that the Lord—in the law of Moses—gives an indistinct license to those in sacred Orders so that they may satisfy their passions, let him tell me now: why does [the Lord] warn those who had the custody of the most holy things in the following way: "You must make yourselves holy, for I am Yahweh your God" (Lev 20:7). Likewise, why were the priests ordered, during the year of their tour of duty, to live in the temple, away from their homes? Quite obviously so that they would not be able to have carnal knowledge of any woman, even their wives, and, thus, having a conscience radiating integrity, they could offer to God offerings worthy of his acceptance. Those men, once they had fulfilled their time of service, were permitted to have marital intercourse for the sole purpose of ensuring their descent, because no one except [the members] of the tribe of Levi could be admitted to the divine ministry.[27]
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (315–68), a Doctor of the Church, was a married bishop and had a daughter named Apra, who was baptized together with her father, when he and his wife became Christians. Among Popes of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, the father of Pope Damasus I (366–84) was a bishop. Pope Felix III (483–92), whose father was almost certainly a priest, was the great-great-grandfather of Pope Gregory I the Great (590–604). Pope Hormisdas (514–23) was the father of Pope Silverius (536–37).[24] No statement is given on whether, among these, the children in question were born when their fathers were still laymen.
Thus, in the West, during the patristic era and into the early Middle Ages, clerical celibacy (i.e. being unmarried) was not in force; but a cleric was obliged by canon law and, it was claimed, by a custom dating from the Apostles, to be continent and have no sexual relations even with his wife.
As for the East, the Greek ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Sozomen, who wrote a century after the event, reported that the First Council of Nicaea (325) considered ordering all married clergy to refrain from conjugal relations, but the Council was dissuaded by Paphnutius of Thebes.[28]
According to Sozomen's history:
While [the bishops at Nicaea] were deliberating about this, some thought that a law ought to be passed enacting that bishops and presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, should hold no intercourse with the wife they had espoused before they entered the priesthood; but Paphnutius, the confessor, stood up and testified against this proposition; he said that marriage was honorable and chaste, and that cohabitation with their own wives was chastity, and advised the Synod not to frame such a law, for it would be difficult to bear, and might serve as an occasion of incontinence to them and their wives; and he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives. Such was the advice of Paphnutius, although he was himself unmarried, and in accordance with it, the Synod concurred in his counsel, enacted no law about it, but left the matter to the decision of individual judgment, and not to compulsion.[29]
The Council of Nicaea, AD 325, decides in Canon 3:
The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion[30]
The term "subintroducta" refers to an unmarried woman living in association with a man in a merely spiritual marriage, a practice that seems to have existed already in the time of Hermas; in the 4th century such a woman was also referred to as an "agapeta".[31][32] Stefan Heid has argued that the pre-Nicaean acceptance of that arrangement for clerics was an indication that the clergy were expected to live in continence even with their wives.[33]
A leading participant in the Council, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote: "It is fitting that |those in the priesthood and occupied in the service of God, should abstain after ordination from the intercourse of marriage."[34]
Epiphanius of Salamis (died 403) accused the heretics whom he called "Purists" of "mixing up everyone's duty":
They have assumed that what is enjoined upon the priesthood because of the priesthood's preeminence applies equally to everyone. They have heard, "The bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, continent; likewise the deacon and the presbyter", but not understood the limitation of the ordinances. … She (God's holy church) does not accept the husband of one wife if he is still co-habiting with her and fathering children. She does accept the abstinent husband of one wife, or the widower, as a deacon, presbyter, bishop and subdeacon, [but no other married men], particularly where the canons of the church are strictly observed. But in some places, you will surely tell me, presbyters, deacons and sub-deacons are still fathering children [while exercising their office.] This is not canonical, but is due to men's occasional remissness of purpose, and because there is no one to serve the congregation.[35]
Similar evidence of the existence in the 4th-century East, as in the West, of a rule or at least an ideal of clerical continence that was considered to be canonical is found in Epiphanius's Panarion, 48, 9 and Expositio Fidei, 21. Synesius (died c. 414), who refused to be bound by the obligation, knew that, if made a bishop, he was expected to live in continence with his wife.[36] One of the accusations against Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus, in his trial before John Chrysostom was that "after separating from his married wife, he had taken her again".[37] In his note on this phrase, the translator Herbert Moore says: "According to the 'Apostolic Canons', only the lower orders of clergy were allowed to marry after their appointment to office; the Council in Trullo ordered that a bishop's wife should retire to a convent, or become a deaconess; that of Caesarea, that if a priest marries after ordination he must be degraded. For Antoninus to resume relations with his wife was equivalent to marriage after ordination. It was proposed at the Council of Nicaea that married clergy should be compelled to separate from their wives, but the proposal was rejected; though it was generally held that the relations of bishops with their wives should be those of brother and sister."
[edit] Fifth to seventh centuries
In saying that "in certain provinces it is permitted to the readers and singers to marry",[38] of the Council of Chalcedon (451) suggests that, in other provinces, not only bishops, priests, deacons and subdeacons, but even those in the lower orders of readers and singers were at that time not permitted to marry.
Needless to say, the rule or ideal of clerical continence was not always observed either in the West or in the East, and it was because of violations that it was from time to time affirmed. Emperor Justinian I (died 565) ordered that the children of priests, deacons and subdeacons who, "in disregard of the sacred canons, have children by women with whom, according to sacerdotal regulation, they may not cohabit" be considered illegitimate on the same level as those "procreated in incest and in nefarious nuptials".[39] As for bishops, he forbade "any one to be ordained bishop who has children or grandchildren".[40]
Canon 13 of the Quinisext Council (Constantinople, 692) shows that by that time there was a direct contradiction between the ideas of East and West about the legitimacy of conjugal relations on the part of clergy lower than the rank of bishop who had married before being ordained:
Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence.[41]
The canon mistakenly claims that the canon of the late-4th-century Council of Carthage quoted above excluded conjugal intercourse by clergy lower than bishops only in connection with their liturgical service or in times of fasting. The Council of Carthage excluded such intercourse perpetually and made no distinction between bishops, priests and deacons.[42]
There have been no changes since then in the discipline of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which for bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons excludes marriage after ordination, but allows, except for periods before celebrating the Divine Liturgy, conjugal relations by priests and deacons married before ordination, and requires celibacy and perpetual continence only of bishops.
[edit] Eleventh and twelfth centuries
In 888, two local councils, that of Metz and that of Mainz, prohibited cohabitation even with wives living in continence. This tendency was taken up by the 11th century Gregorian Reform, which aimed at eliminating what it called "Nicolaitism",[43] that is clerical marriage, which in spite of being theoretically excluded was in fact practised,[44] and concubinage.
The First Lateran Council (1123), a General Council, adopted the following canons:
Canon 3: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.
Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance.[45]
The phrase "contract marriage" in the first part of canon 21 excludes clerical marriages, and the marriages that the second part says must be dissolved may possibly be such marriages, contracted after ordination, not before. Canon 3 makes reference to a rule made at the First Council of Nicaea (see above), which is understood as not forbidding a cleric to live in the same house with a wife whom he married before being ordained.
Sixteen years later, the Second Lateran Council (1139), in which some five hundred bishops took part, enacted the following canons:
Canon 6: We also decree that those who in the subdiaconate and higher orders have contracted marriage or have concubines, be deprived of their office and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they indulge in marriage and in impurities.
Canon 7: Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban, and Paschal, we command that no one attend the masses of those who are known to have wives or concubines. But that the law of continence and purity, so pleasing to God, may become more general among persons constituted in sacred orders, we decree that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks, and professed clerics (conversi) who, transgressing the holy precept, have dared to contract marriage, shall be separated. For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony. Those who have been separated from each other, shall do penance commensurate with such excesses.[46]
This Council thus declared clerical marriages not only illicit though valid, as before, but invalid ("we do not regard as matrimony"). The marriages in question are, again, those contracted by men who already are "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed clerics". And later legislation, found especially in the Quinque Compilationes Antiquae and the Decretals of Gregory IX, continued to deal with questions concerning married men who were ordained legally. In 1322 Pope John XXII insisted that no one bound in marriage—even if unconsummated—could be ordained unless there was full knowledge of the requirements of Church law. If the free consent of the wife had not been obtained, the husband, even if already ordained, was to be reunited with his wife, exercise of his ministry being barred. Accordingly, the assumption that a wife might not want to give up her marital rights may have been one of the factors contributing to the eventual universal practice in the Latin Church of ordaining only unmarried men.[47]
However, although the decrees of the Second Council of the Lateran might still be interpreted in the older sense of prohibiting marriage only after ordination, they came to be understood as absolute prohibitions, and, while the fact of being married was formally made a canonical impediment to ordination only with the 1917 Code of Canon Law,[48] the prohibition of marriage for all clerics in major orders began to be taken simply for granted.[24] The Second Lateran Council is thus often cited as having for the first time introduced a general law of celibacy, requiring ordination only of unmarried men.
[edit] Sixteenth century
While the 11th century Gregorian Reform 's campaign against clerical marriage and concubinage met strong opposition,[49] by the time of the Second Lateran Council it had won widespread support from lay and ecclesiastical leaders.
New opposition appeared in connection with the Protestant Reformation, not only on the part of the Reformers, but also among churchmen and others who remained in union with the see of Rome. Figures such as Panormitanus, Erasmus, Thomas Cajetan, and the Holy Roman Emperors Charles V, Ferdinand I and Maximilian II argued against it.
In practice, the discipline of clerical continence meant by then that only unmarried men were ordained. Thus, in the discussions that took place, no distinction was made between clerical continence and clerical celibacy.
The Reformers made abolition of clerical continence and celibacy a key element in their reform. They denounced it as opposed to the New Testament recommendation that a cleric should be "the husband of one wife" (see on 1 Timothy 3:2–4 above), the declared right of the apostles to take around with them a believing Christian as a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5) and the admonition, "Marriage should be honoured by all" (Hebrews 13:4). They blamed it for widespread sexual misconduct among the clergy.[50]
Against the long-standing tradition of the Church in the East as well as in the West, which excluded marriage after ordination, Zwingli married in 1522, Luther in 1525, and Calvin in 1539. And against what had also become, though seemingly at a later date, a tradition in both East and West, the married Thomas Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533.
The Council of Trent considered the matter and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage after ordination was invalid: "If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able" (canon 9).
It also decreed, concerning the relative dignity of marriage and celibacy: "If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."[51]
[edit] Rules
Rules on celibacy differ between different religious traditions and churches:
In Latin-Rite (Western) Catholic churches, married men may (since the time of the Second Vatican Council in 1965) be ordained deacons, but may not be ordained priests or bishops, nor may one marry after ordination. Since the start of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant ministers or Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent. The Roman Catholic Church considers Protestant and most Anglican ordinations invalid, while recognizing Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglican ordinations as valid. In some cases, laicized Catholic priests are allowed to marry by special dispensation. Additionally, dispensations can be granted for deacons whose wives have died to marry a second time.
In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches (which latter are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained to any order except as bishops, and one may not marry after ordination as a subdeacon. The Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East follow the same rules that hold in the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the exception of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which permits ordained deacons to marry. While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives' maintenance, for example Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife.
Churches of the Anglican Communion have no restrictions on the marriage of deacons, priests, bishops, or other ministers. Early Anglican Church clergy under Henry VIII were required to be celibate (see 6 Articles), but the requirement was eliminated by Edward VI. Some Anglo-Catholic priestly orders require their members to remain celibate, as do orders of all brothers and sisters.
Most Protestant traditions have no restrictions on the marriage of ministers or other clergy, except that in some circles divorced persons may not serve as pastors, and in practice the majority of pastors are married.
In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormon tradition, all worthy males can receive a priesthood office beginning with that of deacon at age 12. Regardless of whether they receive a calling to the priesthood, strict abstinence from all sexual behavior is universally applied to all men (and women) until they marry. Gay men must always be celibate and continent. Priesthood may be suspended in the event of unchaste conduct. Generally, only married men are called to be bishops (who preside over local congregations designated as wards) and to higher offices.
Judaism has no history of celibacy for its leaders, rabbis or kohens. Before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, priests, kohens, and Levites were required to practice continence (abstain from sexual intercourse with their wife) before and during their time of service at the temple. They were permitted to resume marital relations after completing their service. Some community functions are, as a rule, filled only by married men. Additionally, as in Islam, marriage is encouraged for everyone.
In Islam, lifelong celibacy or monasticism is forbidden. Marriage is encouraged for everyone.
The traditions of monasticism within Buddhism require celibacy. Several cultures, however, have revised this and now have forms of married lay teachers, who are distinct from the celibate clergy.
[edit] Modern Roman Catholic Church
See main article: Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church).
Celibacy is represented in the Roman Catholic Church as having apostolic authority. Theologically, the Church desires to imitate the life of Jesus with regard to chastity and the sacrifice of married life for the "sake of the Kingdom" (Luke 18:28–30, Matthew 19:27–30; Mark 10:20–21), and to follow the example of Jesus Christ in being "married" to the Church, viewed by Catholicism and many Christian traditions as the "Bride of Christ". Also of importance are the teachings of St. Paul that chastity is the superior state of life, and his desire expressed in I Corinthians 7:7–8, "I would that all men were even as myself [celibate]—but every one has his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."
Practically speaking, the reasons for celibacy are given by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 7:7–8; 32–35: "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment."
I Corinthians 9:5 is sometimes cited by those opposed to celibacy, as the verse is often rendered as referring to the Apostles carrying "wives" with them. However, the Greek word for "wife" is the same word for "woman". The Early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine state the Greek word is ambiguous and the women in I Corinthians 9:5 were women ministering to the Apostles as women ministered to Christ (cf. Luke 8:1–3), and were not wives.[52] They even went as far as to assert they left their "offices of marriage" to follow Christ and to preach.[53]
Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine: in other words, a church regulation, but not an integral part of Church teaching. It is based upon the life of Christ and his celibate way of life. However the first pope, St. Peter, as well as many subsequent popes, bishops, and priests during the church's first 270 years were in fact married men, and often fathers. The practice of clerical continence, along with a prohibition of marriage by men once they were ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, is traceable from the time of the Council of Elvira. This law was reinforced in the Directa Decretal (385) and at the Council of Carthage in 390. The tradition of clerical continence developed into a practice of clerical celibacy (ordaining only unmarried men) from the 11th century onward among Latin Rite Catholics and became a formal part of canon law in 1917. This law of clerical celibacy does not apply to Eastern Catholics. Until recently, the Eastern Catholic bishops of North America would generally ordain only unmarried men, for fear that married priests would create scandal. Since Vatican II's call for the restoration of Eastern Catholic traditions, a number of bishops have returned to the traditional practice of ordaining married men to the presbyterate. Bishops are still celibate and normally chosen from the ranks of monks.
In the Latin Rite exceptions are sometimes made. After the Second Vatican Council a general exception was made for the ordination as deacons of men of at least thirty-five years of age who are not intended to be ordained later as priests and whose wives consent to their ordination.[54] Since the time of Pope Pius XII individual exceptions are sometimes made for former non-Catholic clergymen. Under the rules proposed for personal ordinariates for former Anglicans, the ordinary may request the Pope to grant authorization, on a case-by-case basis, for admission to ordination in the Catholic Church of married former Anglican clergy (see Personal ordinariate#Married former Anglican clergy and rules on celibacy).
Because the rule of clerical celibacy is a law and not a doctrine, exceptions can be made, and it can, in principle, be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, both the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and his predecessor, spoke clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice is unlikely to change.
[edit] See also
Clerical marriage practice of marriage after ordination.
MacTaggart, Scottish surname which originally meant "son of the priest"
[edit] Notes
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder.
When Rome went from being pagan to Christian under Constantine, they had to find a replacement for the great mother of paganism. It was not until the time of Constantine that anyone began to look at Mary as a goddess.
Since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she was the most logical person to replace the pagan mother goddess. The pagans could continue their prayers and devotion to the mother goddess, only they would call her Mary.
The pagans worshipped the mother as much or more than her son and this is exactly what the Roman Catholicism does. True Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped – not his mother. The fact remains that Jesus never hinted at the idea of Mary worship nor did any of the apostles.
Worshipping the mother goddess along with her child took place centuries before Jesus Christ was ever born in many different parts of the world. In 431 A.D. Mary worship became an official doctrine of the church in at the Council of Ephesus.
Since the formation of the Roman Empire, the Roman emperors (including Constantine) held the office of Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Priest) and were worshipped by the pagans as gods.
Emperor Gratian in 376 A.D. refused the title of Pontifex Maximus, and from then on it was bestowed upon the bishop of Rome. From hereon, the bishop of Rome was to be the Supreme Priest to the pagans and the head of the Christian church; the streams of paganism and Christianity flowed together under the leadership of Pontifex Maximus, ultimately to be called the Pope.
The question remains, how can a man at the same time be the Pontifex Maximus which was the head of the pagan mysteries and the head of the church? Although the Roman Catholic church claims that Peter was the first Pope, it is strange that we never read any such claim by Peter. The fact that Jesus never instituted the office of Pope in his church during his earthly ministry plainly shows that the Pope is neither Bishop of bishops nor the successor of the apostle Peter.
One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality. Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes. Jesus never said, "do as I say, not as I do". On the contrary, Jesus Christ led a holy life and we should follow His example. Here are a few examples:
*
Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as "the rule of the harlots".
*
Pope John XII was an immoral man and whose palace was likened to a brothel. The bishop of Cremona, Luitprand said, "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows – they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul."
*
Pope Boniface VIII maintained his position through lavish distribution of stolen money. He was quoted saying, "to enjoy oneself and lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together."
*
Pope John XXII was said to have seduced and violated three hundred nuns. He must have had a strong and insatiable libido for he kept a harem of no less than two hundred girls. He was called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne." A Vatican record says this about him, "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ... he was publicly called the Devil incarnate."
*
Pope Pius II was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women and he encouraged young men to also seduce women and even offered to instruct them in methods of self-indulgence.
*
Pope Sixtus IV financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders. He used the papacy to enrich himself and his family, for no less than eight cardinals were his nephews, some being given the position of cardinal even as a boy.
*
Pope Alexander VI won the election of the papacy by bribery. He lived with a woman with whom he had a daughter; whom afterward he committed incest with and produced five children. He also lived in public incest with his two sisters. He conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican in which he had a banquet featuring fifty nude girls who danced and serviced the guests – and even offered prizes to the man who could engage in sexual intercourse the most times.
Martin Luther himself also witnessed that Rome with its popes was anything but a holy city. He was quoted as saying, "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome, they must be seen and heard to be believed." It has been said, "If there be a hell, Rome is built over it." Having shown just a few examples of the corruption and wickedness that has existed in the lives of the popes; this evidence seriously undermines the belief of "apostolic succession," the claim that the Roman Catholic church is the one "true" church supposedly claiming to trace a line of pope back to Peter, since Peter himself stressed the importance of holiness. It is important to note that pagan popes can be traced back to Babylon but no Christian popes existed until Constantine in 312 A.D. declared himself to be Pope.
The popes were not the only ones that struggled with sexual misconduct; the clergy were just as guilty. When the doctrine of celibacy began to be taught, many clergy were married men. An edict was established in 315 A.D. that forbade a priest to remarry if his wife were to die. In 386 A.D. another edict came into being, allowing priests to be married but forbidding them to have sexual intercourse with their wives. Although this edict was in effect, a large number of clergy openly took wives and fathered children. Some monasteries and nunneries were known in history to be so bad that they actually had a worse reputation than the brothels. The violations by priests were so bad at one point that even female animals were not allowed on monastery property! Priests were urged to be chaste, and if they failed, at least be careful. With this man-made tradition imposed upon them, it made an already difficult job of the confessional even more difficult. The confessional was where sins had to be confessed specifically and in detail so that the priest could render judgment and offer forgiveness of sins. It is not hard to see that the outcome of girls and women and even boys confessing their moral weaknesses and desires to unmarried priests could readily result in widespread abuse. The Roman Catholic church has been lately rocked by one scandal after another of sexual abuse by priests.
The doctrine of a celibate priesthood that has done more damage than good since its inception. At the beginning of creation, God did not want Adam to be alone and created Eve for him. According to the Bible, it was God's design for a husband and wife to become one flesh and to cleave to each other, and yet the Roman Catholic church says otherwise. They have another man-made doctrine condemning priests to celibacy, something which God never intended. Bishops (i.e. pastors, priests) according the Bible are supposed the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible by placing an undue burden upon the clergy by forbidding them to marry (I Timothy 4:1-3), the Bible calls this a "doctrine of devils!" It is important to note that the priests of pagan Rome were also required to be celibate, and this tradition dates back all the way to Babylon and Semiramis several thousand years before. Even the idea of confessing to a priest came from Babylon. It is from recorded Babylonian confessions that historians have been able to come up with conclusions about the Babylonian concepts of right and wrong. The priests of pagan Rome were called "fathers," but Jesus said to call no man "father." (Matthew 23:9-12) From what source did the Roman Catholic custom of calling a priest by this title come from, Jesus or the pagans? Jesus spoke against flattering titles to his disciples, he wanted them to treat each other equally. Jesus meant for God the Father to receive all glory, not men. It is plain to see that the majority of the traditions of the Roman Catholic church are man-made and of pagan origins. An intellectually honest search will show the pagan roots of the Roman Catholic church.
The cardinals were the chief clergy in pagan Rome and the word in Latin means "hinge," hence they were pivotal serving as the priests of Janus who was the pagan god of doors and hinges. He was known as the "opener and shutter," and we can understand that better by the words of Jesus in Revelation 3:7-8. Jesus was the true opener, Janus was a counterfeit. These pagan priests wore the color red because it symbolized fire, they were the keepers of the sacred fire and accordingly were known as the "Flamens." All throughout the Bible, the color red is associated with sin. (Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 23:14-15; Revelation 17:4) With some knowledge of history, it is easy to see the merge of Babylonian paganism and Christianity and how they became one.
Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Worship is vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God. Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man's teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture. The result is vain worship, and no matter how sincere, it makes the commandment of God of no effect – a very serious matter.
The last few popes have expanded the ecumenical (worldwide) emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. II Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 3:1-17, 4:1-8. All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)
People do not realize that counterfeit religions, like counterfeit money, must resemble the genuine in order to deceive those who lack spiritual discernment or those who have not had the opportunity or taken the time to carefully compare all the major tenets of Roman Catholicism with the truth of God's Word. Only when one compares men's words with Scripture will it become obvious that Roman Catholicism is a carefully crafted counterfeit, not the pure, genuine, Biblical faith.
Jesus Christ plainly taught that Mary was on the same plane with all other Christians who would do the will of God. In Mark 3:31-35 we read:
"There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. "
Do not avoid the truth here on the authority of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." And when one heard Jesus and cried out, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked, "Jesus answered, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28) There is no hint in the Bible that New Testament Christians ever regarded Mary as more than a good woman. She had no authority among the apostles. No one was taught to pray to her, to do her homage, to adore her, or to partake of the unscriptural worship which Catholics do, but call it by other names.
To deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the reformation and mock the millions of martyrs who died at Rome's hands. The "Christ" of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its "Mary." Remember that a cult according to the Word of God is any group of people that worship anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ, and believe anything contrary to His word as recorded in the Bible. Roman Catholicism is not truly Christian, but is in fact an offshoot of Christianity and the largest and oldest "Christian" cult in the world. In addition, the display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as "His Holiness the Pope" or "Father" of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian that the Roman Catholic church is a cult.
The Scriptures use terms such as "apostasy," "false teacher," "false prophet," "error," "seducer," "heretic," and "doctrines of devils" to describe impure doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church meets every Bible criteria for apostasy, which is a turning away from and rejection of the truth. Its gospel is false, and thus is cursed of God (Galatians 1:8). It has exalted its own man-made traditions to the level of Holy Scripture, and thus worships God in vain (Matthew 15:1-9). Its leaders are false prophets; its dogmas are doctrines of devils; its Papacy is antichrist. What does God say regarding an apostate entity? Does He say we should find positive ways to see that entity? Does He say we should try to find common ground through which we can share and discuss the gospel in love and understanding? No, God says, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues!" (Revelation 18:4). We know that the Roman Catholic church has become an expert in taking various ideas or traditions and mixing them together into its system of religion.
The Roman Catholic church always has been and continues to be a false church. The Biblical doctrines it professes to believe and teach are perverted by doctrine based upon tradition that contradicts the Bible, God's infallible Word. Error is never more deceptive than when it is presented with a mask of truth. The leaders of the Catholic Church have always fit the description of the false teachers who God warned in advance would come on the scene in the last days, deceiving many with their counterfeit words - as described in II Peter 2:1-3, 18, 19.
It is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a false cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:
1.
Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19)
2.
Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)
Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church and a cult that can only expect God's judgment, not a true church that can claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to obscure this fact. Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Babylonian paganism that has been whitewashed and made to appear Christian.
Cult Beliefs:
*
They believe purgatory is a place where a person is purified of sins – even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says, when a person dies their eternal home is sealed – heaven or hell – there is no place in between like purgatory. (Hebrews 9:27) The word "purgatory" and its concept is not found in the Bible.
*
They believe in worshipping images of Mary, crucifix, saints, angels, etc. The Bibles speaks out against this. (Exodus 20:4-5)
*
They believe in repetitious prayer to Mary, saints and angels. The complete Rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed. The Rosary did not come into general use until after the beginning of the thirteenth century, and not officially sanctioned until after the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The concept of praying to Mary, saints, and angels is not found in the Bible; on the contrary, we are directed to pray to our Father. (Matthew 6:9-13) In the Rosary, Mary is prayed to almost 9 times for every prayer directed to God. The Bible speaks out very clearly against praying in vain repetitions as the heathens do.
1.
In "The Holy Father's Prayer for the Marian Year [1987]," John Paul II asks Mary to do what only God can do – comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect "the whole of humanity ..." His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation." (4/97, Berean Call).
2.
In preparing for an expected earthquake in December, 1990, in the Saint Louis area, parishioners at St. Agatha RC church turned to St. Agatha, "the patron saint of protection from the devastation of volcanoes, earthquakes, fire, and all kinds of violence." The church reported in the St. Louis Southwest City Journal of 10/21/90 that a novena was to be held, including a recitation of the rosary, a prayer to St. Agatha, and a closing benediction. (Reported in the November/December 1990, Foundation.)
3.
A Roman Catholic ritual for selling a home: Put a statue of St. Joseph in a bottle or mason jar and bury it in the front yard (head first), thereby guaranteeing a quick sale of the home. After the sale, the seller is to dig up St. Joseph, put him in a prominent place in the new residence, and pray to him (Mother Angelica, EWTN Catholic TV, 10/95).
Take note in the following two prayers how Mary is magnified above Jesus...
o
Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Why is Mary being prayed to this way, is she God? The Bible never directs us to pray to Mary.
o
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.” Roman Catholicism should be renamed "Mary Worship", because that is really what it is; it places her on a high pedestal, equal with God. Mary was the mother of Jesus, nothing more, and she is not the advocate as mentioned in the Bible. (I John 2:1)
*
They forbid their priests marry, when God specifically set up marriage for all, even priests. (I Timothy 3:2) To impose the burden of celibacy upon a priest is to put a man-made burden that is not necessary on them and not mandated by God, it is a clear case of putting human tradition ahead of the Bible. Many Roman Catholics believe that Peter was not married, the Bible says otherwise. (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39) It is interesting to note that priests of pagan Rome were also made to take a vow of celibacy as were the priests of Babylon.
*
They believe one way of attaining salvation from the punishment of one's sins is through indulgences, which can be purchased with money or through acts of penitence, acts of charity, or other pietistic means. The idea of indulgences is based on good works meriting God's grace. Since they believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for the full payment of the penalty of sin, acts of piety and gifts to the Roman Catholic church may be used as partial payment for one's sins. The adequacy of an indulgence depends upon the merit attributed to it by the Roman Catholic church. The Bible says we are saved by faith and nothing else! Once you die, it's judgment time! (Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 9:27)
*
They believe in confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus is the only mediator we need; we do not need the pope, priests, Mary or the saints. (Matthew 6:9, 12; I John 1:9, 2:1; I Timothy 2:5)
*
They believe it is necessary for salvation to partake in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (communion). They believe they actually eat and drink the body and blood of Christ through a process called transubstantiation, whereby a priest prays over the wafer and wine and it is supernaturally turned into Christ's body. They will quote scripture (John 6:53-58; Matthew 26:26-28) out of context to support their viewpoint. Jesus was alive when the last supper took place and by interpreting this scripture literally instead of figuratively (symbolizing his body and blood), it creates numerous problems. Jesus referred to himself as a "door," "vine," and "rock" and these descriptions are recognized as figurative. (John 10:9, 15:5; I Corinthians 10:4) Therefore Jesus is crucified afresh everyday by priests all over the world, who are putting him to open shame. The Bible says that Jesus was physically offered up once (died for our sins), never to be repeated again. (Hebrews 9:1-28, 10:12-18) He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the Mass as a mass of blood and flesh. It is very important to note that Jesus told us to take the bread (which symbolized his body) and wine (which symbolized his blood); but he did so while he was here on earth and alive. Roman Catholicism makes Jesus and his disciples into cannibals, because he and his disciples were eating his body that was alive. (I Corinthians 11:23-26)
*
They believe there are oral traditions and teachings by Jesus that are not mentioned in the Bible; furthermore, the Roman Catholic religion has somehow been able to get this spoken word from somewhere, we're just not told how it was done. This means whoever sits on the papal chair in Rome is considered more authoritative than the Bible itself. (Matthew 15:3,6-7; Mark 7:5-9,13) The cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura – the insistence that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for all believers. The Holy Spirit's enlightenment is a safeguard against religious tyranny.
*
They believe that Mary never had anymore children after giving birth to Jesus and that she remained a perpetual virgin until she died. Why are we to believe that Joseph and Mary never had sexual intercourse? What husband and wife live and die together without consummating their marriage? These are speculative questions, but is is obvious Mary could not have remained a virgin if she had other children as recorded in the Bible. (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).
*
They believe that the church is founded upon the apostle Peter, that he was the first pope. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: "...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The Bible says that Jesus is the foundation of the church. (Matthew 21:42; I Corinthians 3:11) Peter was not the first pope, nor is there any Biblical justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He then identifies himself in II Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ...." Peter was a man like you and me. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:25-26). The pope needs to remember this when men are bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. Furthermore, history confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church, not even in the Roman Catholic church during the first centuries of its existence.
*
They believe the pope is the Holy Father, a title only given to God. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous. (John 17:11)
*
They pray to and worship Mary – an 1854 papal decree (Pope Pius IX) on the Immaculate Conception of Mary that has never been revoked, states, "Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... continue to venerate, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin." Praying to Mary is something that is not spoken of in the Bible and would make her an equal with God, thus she has become a deity to Roman Catholics. Mary, according to the Roman Catholics has become the queen of heaven. When the queen of heaven is referred to in the Bible, she is spoken of negatively. (Jeremiah 7:17-19) Mary needed a savior as much as anyone else and acknowledged this in Luke 1:47.
*
They believe that Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus. In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV's (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. Pope Pius XI officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." The Bible specifically states that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary is a co-redeemer. (John 14:6) God speaks out very clearly against the "Queen of Heaven". (Jeremiah 7:17-19)
*
They believe a baby can be "born again" through baptism by sprinkling, furthermore, they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. The issue of infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it mention anything about babies and salvation. We are all born with sin and that alone disqualifies us from getting to heaven. (Romans 3:23) The act of baptism in the Bible does not guarantee you a place in heaven or make you born again, rather it is an outward act of obedience to God after you have been saved.
*
They believe that Jesus merely made the way open for salvation. In order to enter into that salvation, one must live in obedience to the authority of the papacy. In addition, Jesus' provision for salvation not being complete, the Roman Catholic church offers other means to assure one's salvation. The Roman Catholic church says it alone can grant this essential blessing for full salvation. This supersedes the Bible in which God guarantees our salvation. (John 10:27-29; Romans 10:9-17) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a mechanic.
*
They believe that we are saved in part by good works and that good works are necessary for salvation. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. Good works come as a result of being saved. (Romans 3:24-28; Ephesians 2:8-9)
*
They believe there are different levels of sin; mortal (deadly) sins in which you are in danger of losing your salvation and venial (minor) sins which are not as serious. Mankind has placed different distinctions on sin (i.e. someone caught lying is not punished as severely as a person who is a murderer). However, in God's eyes, sin is sin, there is no distinction. (Romans 3:23)
Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ. By contrast, the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Bible salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their defense. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Membership or faith in a church does not secure salvation for anyone, but trust Christ and Him alone and you will be saved for all eternity! Would you like to be saved?
Further information can be found in the following books:
50 Years in the "Church" of Rome by Charles Chiniquy
Answers to my Catholic Friends by Thomas Heinze
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop
Understanding Roman Catholicism by Rick Jones
Since Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she was the most logical person to replace the pagan mother goddess. The pagans could continue their prayers and devotion to the mother goddess, only they would call her Mary.
The pagans worshipped the mother as much or more than her son and this is exactly what the Roman Catholicism does. True Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped – not his mother. The fact remains that Jesus never hinted at the idea of Mary worship nor did any of the apostles.
Worshipping the mother goddess along with her child took place centuries before Jesus Christ was ever born in many different parts of the world. In 431 A.D. Mary worship became an official doctrine of the church in at the Council of Ephesus.
Since the formation of the Roman Empire, the Roman emperors (including Constantine) held the office of Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Priest) and were worshipped by the pagans as gods.
Emperor Gratian in 376 A.D. refused the title of Pontifex Maximus, and from then on it was bestowed upon the bishop of Rome. From hereon, the bishop of Rome was to be the Supreme Priest to the pagans and the head of the Christian church; the streams of paganism and Christianity flowed together under the leadership of Pontifex Maximus, ultimately to be called the Pope.
The question remains, how can a man at the same time be the Pontifex Maximus which was the head of the pagan mysteries and the head of the church? Although the Roman Catholic church claims that Peter was the first Pope, it is strange that we never read any such claim by Peter. The fact that Jesus never instituted the office of Pope in his church during his earthly ministry plainly shows that the Pope is neither Bishop of bishops nor the successor of the apostle Peter.
One issue that is very damaging to idea of a Pope is the fact that some of the popes were so depraved, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Looking into the history of the papacy, it is easy to see that not all popes were holy men. Accusations against them included but were not limited to blasphemy, simony (the buying and selling of the papal office), perjury, murder, adultery, intercourse with virgins and nuns, incest, sodomy, bestiality, robbery, idolatry, magic, infidelity, and gross and unnatural immorality. Historians, even Roman Catholic historians will even attest to the fact there have been many sinful popes. Therefore, if popes are supposed to be the "representatives of Christ" here on earth and they are living an immoral lifestyle, should their commands still be obeyed if they are living in sin? No, it would be hypocritical for them to make rulings and decrees, and yet this is exactly what has been done by the popes. Jesus never said, "do as I say, not as I do". On the contrary, Jesus Christ led a holy life and we should follow His example. Here are a few examples:
*
Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as "the rule of the harlots".
*
Pope John XII was an immoral man and whose palace was likened to a brothel. The bishop of Cremona, Luitprand said, "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows – they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul."
*
Pope Boniface VIII maintained his position through lavish distribution of stolen money. He was quoted saying, "to enjoy oneself and lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together."
*
Pope John XXII was said to have seduced and violated three hundred nuns. He must have had a strong and insatiable libido for he kept a harem of no less than two hundred girls. He was called "the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne." A Vatican record says this about him, "His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes... wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ... he was publicly called the Devil incarnate."
*
Pope Pius II was said to have been the father of many illegitimate children. He spoke openly of the methods he used to seduce women and he encouraged young men to also seduce women and even offered to instruct them in methods of self-indulgence.
*
Pope Sixtus IV financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders. He used the papacy to enrich himself and his family, for no less than eight cardinals were his nephews, some being given the position of cardinal even as a boy.
*
Pope Alexander VI won the election of the papacy by bribery. He lived with a woman with whom he had a daughter; whom afterward he committed incest with and produced five children. He also lived in public incest with his two sisters. He conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican in which he had a banquet featuring fifty nude girls who danced and serviced the guests – and even offered prizes to the man who could engage in sexual intercourse the most times.
Martin Luther himself also witnessed that Rome with its popes was anything but a holy city. He was quoted as saying, "No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome, they must be seen and heard to be believed." It has been said, "If there be a hell, Rome is built over it." Having shown just a few examples of the corruption and wickedness that has existed in the lives of the popes; this evidence seriously undermines the belief of "apostolic succession," the claim that the Roman Catholic church is the one "true" church supposedly claiming to trace a line of pope back to Peter, since Peter himself stressed the importance of holiness. It is important to note that pagan popes can be traced back to Babylon but no Christian popes existed until Constantine in 312 A.D. declared himself to be Pope.
The popes were not the only ones that struggled with sexual misconduct; the clergy were just as guilty. When the doctrine of celibacy began to be taught, many clergy were married men. An edict was established in 315 A.D. that forbade a priest to remarry if his wife were to die. In 386 A.D. another edict came into being, allowing priests to be married but forbidding them to have sexual intercourse with their wives. Although this edict was in effect, a large number of clergy openly took wives and fathered children. Some monasteries and nunneries were known in history to be so bad that they actually had a worse reputation than the brothels. The violations by priests were so bad at one point that even female animals were not allowed on monastery property! Priests were urged to be chaste, and if they failed, at least be careful. With this man-made tradition imposed upon them, it made an already difficult job of the confessional even more difficult. The confessional was where sins had to be confessed specifically and in detail so that the priest could render judgment and offer forgiveness of sins. It is not hard to see that the outcome of girls and women and even boys confessing their moral weaknesses and desires to unmarried priests could readily result in widespread abuse. The Roman Catholic church has been lately rocked by one scandal after another of sexual abuse by priests.
The doctrine of a celibate priesthood that has done more damage than good since its inception. At the beginning of creation, God did not want Adam to be alone and created Eve for him. According to the Bible, it was God's design for a husband and wife to become one flesh and to cleave to each other, and yet the Roman Catholic church says otherwise. They have another man-made doctrine condemning priests to celibacy, something which God never intended. Bishops (i.e. pastors, priests) according the Bible are supposed the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible by placing an undue burden upon the clergy by forbidding them to marry (I Timothy 4:1-3), the Bible calls this a "doctrine of devils!" It is important to note that the priests of pagan Rome were also required to be celibate, and this tradition dates back all the way to Babylon and Semiramis several thousand years before. Even the idea of confessing to a priest came from Babylon. It is from recorded Babylonian confessions that historians have been able to come up with conclusions about the Babylonian concepts of right and wrong. The priests of pagan Rome were called "fathers," but Jesus said to call no man "father." (Matthew 23:9-12) From what source did the Roman Catholic custom of calling a priest by this title come from, Jesus or the pagans? Jesus spoke against flattering titles to his disciples, he wanted them to treat each other equally. Jesus meant for God the Father to receive all glory, not men. It is plain to see that the majority of the traditions of the Roman Catholic church are man-made and of pagan origins. An intellectually honest search will show the pagan roots of the Roman Catholic church.
The cardinals were the chief clergy in pagan Rome and the word in Latin means "hinge," hence they were pivotal serving as the priests of Janus who was the pagan god of doors and hinges. He was known as the "opener and shutter," and we can understand that better by the words of Jesus in Revelation 3:7-8. Jesus was the true opener, Janus was a counterfeit. These pagan priests wore the color red because it symbolized fire, they were the keepers of the sacred fire and accordingly were known as the "Flamens." All throughout the Bible, the color red is associated with sin. (Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 23:14-15; Revelation 17:4) With some knowledge of history, it is easy to see the merge of Babylonian paganism and Christianity and how they became one.
Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Worship is vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God. Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man's teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture. The result is vain worship, and no matter how sincere, it makes the commandment of God of no effect – a very serious matter.
The last few popes have expanded the ecumenical (worldwide) emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. II Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 3:1-17, 4:1-8. All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)
People do not realize that counterfeit religions, like counterfeit money, must resemble the genuine in order to deceive those who lack spiritual discernment or those who have not had the opportunity or taken the time to carefully compare all the major tenets of Roman Catholicism with the truth of God's Word. Only when one compares men's words with Scripture will it become obvious that Roman Catholicism is a carefully crafted counterfeit, not the pure, genuine, Biblical faith.
Jesus Christ plainly taught that Mary was on the same plane with all other Christians who would do the will of God. In Mark 3:31-35 we read:
"There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. "
Do not avoid the truth here on the authority of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." And when one heard Jesus and cried out, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked, "Jesus answered, "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28) There is no hint in the Bible that New Testament Christians ever regarded Mary as more than a good woman. She had no authority among the apostles. No one was taught to pray to her, to do her homage, to adore her, or to partake of the unscriptural worship which Catholics do, but call it by other names.
To deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the reformation and mock the millions of martyrs who died at Rome's hands. The "Christ" of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its "Mary." Remember that a cult according to the Word of God is any group of people that worship anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ, and believe anything contrary to His word as recorded in the Bible. Roman Catholicism is not truly Christian, but is in fact an offshoot of Christianity and the largest and oldest "Christian" cult in the world. In addition, the display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as "His Holiness the Pope" or "Father" of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian that the Roman Catholic church is a cult.
The Scriptures use terms such as "apostasy," "false teacher," "false prophet," "error," "seducer," "heretic," and "doctrines of devils" to describe impure doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church meets every Bible criteria for apostasy, which is a turning away from and rejection of the truth. Its gospel is false, and thus is cursed of God (Galatians 1:8). It has exalted its own man-made traditions to the level of Holy Scripture, and thus worships God in vain (Matthew 15:1-9). Its leaders are false prophets; its dogmas are doctrines of devils; its Papacy is antichrist. What does God say regarding an apostate entity? Does He say we should find positive ways to see that entity? Does He say we should try to find common ground through which we can share and discuss the gospel in love and understanding? No, God says, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues!" (Revelation 18:4). We know that the Roman Catholic church has become an expert in taking various ideas or traditions and mixing them together into its system of religion.
The Roman Catholic church always has been and continues to be a false church. The Biblical doctrines it professes to believe and teach are perverted by doctrine based upon tradition that contradicts the Bible, God's infallible Word. Error is never more deceptive than when it is presented with a mask of truth. The leaders of the Catholic Church have always fit the description of the false teachers who God warned in advance would come on the scene in the last days, deceiving many with their counterfeit words - as described in II Peter 2:1-3, 18, 19.
It is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a false cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:
1.
Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19)
2.
Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)
Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church and a cult that can only expect God's judgment, not a true church that can claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to obscure this fact. Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Babylonian paganism that has been whitewashed and made to appear Christian.
Cult Beliefs:
*
They believe purgatory is a place where a person is purified of sins – even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says, when a person dies their eternal home is sealed – heaven or hell – there is no place in between like purgatory. (Hebrews 9:27) The word "purgatory" and its concept is not found in the Bible.
*
They believe in worshipping images of Mary, crucifix, saints, angels, etc. The Bibles speaks out against this. (Exodus 20:4-5)
*
They believe in repetitious prayer to Mary, saints and angels. The complete Rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed. The Rosary did not come into general use until after the beginning of the thirteenth century, and not officially sanctioned until after the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The concept of praying to Mary, saints, and angels is not found in the Bible; on the contrary, we are directed to pray to our Father. (Matthew 6:9-13) In the Rosary, Mary is prayed to almost 9 times for every prayer directed to God. The Bible speaks out very clearly against praying in vain repetitions as the heathens do.
1.
In "The Holy Father's Prayer for the Marian Year [1987]," John Paul II asks Mary to do what only God can do – comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect "the whole of humanity ..." His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation." (4/97, Berean Call).
2.
In preparing for an expected earthquake in December, 1990, in the Saint Louis area, parishioners at St. Agatha RC church turned to St. Agatha, "the patron saint of protection from the devastation of volcanoes, earthquakes, fire, and all kinds of violence." The church reported in the St. Louis Southwest City Journal of 10/21/90 that a novena was to be held, including a recitation of the rosary, a prayer to St. Agatha, and a closing benediction. (Reported in the November/December 1990, Foundation.)
3.
A Roman Catholic ritual for selling a home: Put a statue of St. Joseph in a bottle or mason jar and bury it in the front yard (head first), thereby guaranteeing a quick sale of the home. After the sale, the seller is to dig up St. Joseph, put him in a prominent place in the new residence, and pray to him (Mother Angelica, EWTN Catholic TV, 10/95).
Take note in the following two prayers how Mary is magnified above Jesus...
o
Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Why is Mary being prayed to this way, is she God? The Bible never directs us to pray to Mary.
o
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.” Roman Catholicism should be renamed "Mary Worship", because that is really what it is; it places her on a high pedestal, equal with God. Mary was the mother of Jesus, nothing more, and she is not the advocate as mentioned in the Bible. (I John 2:1)
*
They forbid their priests marry, when God specifically set up marriage for all, even priests. (I Timothy 3:2) To impose the burden of celibacy upon a priest is to put a man-made burden that is not necessary on them and not mandated by God, it is a clear case of putting human tradition ahead of the Bible. Many Roman Catholics believe that Peter was not married, the Bible says otherwise. (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39) It is interesting to note that priests of pagan Rome were also made to take a vow of celibacy as were the priests of Babylon.
*
They believe one way of attaining salvation from the punishment of one's sins is through indulgences, which can be purchased with money or through acts of penitence, acts of charity, or other pietistic means. The idea of indulgences is based on good works meriting God's grace. Since they believe Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for the full payment of the penalty of sin, acts of piety and gifts to the Roman Catholic church may be used as partial payment for one's sins. The adequacy of an indulgence depends upon the merit attributed to it by the Roman Catholic church. The Bible says we are saved by faith and nothing else! Once you die, it's judgment time! (Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 9:27)
*
They believe in confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus is the only mediator we need; we do not need the pope, priests, Mary or the saints. (Matthew 6:9, 12; I John 1:9, 2:1; I Timothy 2:5)
*
They believe it is necessary for salvation to partake in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (communion). They believe they actually eat and drink the body and blood of Christ through a process called transubstantiation, whereby a priest prays over the wafer and wine and it is supernaturally turned into Christ's body. They will quote scripture (John 6:53-58; Matthew 26:26-28) out of context to support their viewpoint. Jesus was alive when the last supper took place and by interpreting this scripture literally instead of figuratively (symbolizing his body and blood), it creates numerous problems. Jesus referred to himself as a "door," "vine," and "rock" and these descriptions are recognized as figurative. (John 10:9, 15:5; I Corinthians 10:4) Therefore Jesus is crucified afresh everyday by priests all over the world, who are putting him to open shame. The Bible says that Jesus was physically offered up once (died for our sins), never to be repeated again. (Hebrews 9:1-28, 10:12-18) He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the Mass as a mass of blood and flesh. It is very important to note that Jesus told us to take the bread (which symbolized his body) and wine (which symbolized his blood); but he did so while he was here on earth and alive. Roman Catholicism makes Jesus and his disciples into cannibals, because he and his disciples were eating his body that was alive. (I Corinthians 11:23-26)
*
They believe there are oral traditions and teachings by Jesus that are not mentioned in the Bible; furthermore, the Roman Catholic religion has somehow been able to get this spoken word from somewhere, we're just not told how it was done. This means whoever sits on the papal chair in Rome is considered more authoritative than the Bible itself. (Matthew 15:3,6-7; Mark 7:5-9,13) The cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura – the insistence that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for all believers. The Holy Spirit's enlightenment is a safeguard against religious tyranny.
*
They believe that Mary never had anymore children after giving birth to Jesus and that she remained a perpetual virgin until she died. Why are we to believe that Joseph and Mary never had sexual intercourse? What husband and wife live and die together without consummating their marriage? These are speculative questions, but is is obvious Mary could not have remained a virgin if she had other children as recorded in the Bible. (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).
*
They believe that the church is founded upon the apostle Peter, that he was the first pope. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: "...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The Bible says that Jesus is the foundation of the church. (Matthew 21:42; I Corinthians 3:11) Peter was not the first pope, nor is there any Biblical justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He then identifies himself in II Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ...." Peter was a man like you and me. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, "Stand up; I myself also am a man." (Acts 10:25-26). The pope needs to remember this when men are bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. Furthermore, history confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church, not even in the Roman Catholic church during the first centuries of its existence.
*
They believe the pope is the Holy Father, a title only given to God. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous. (John 17:11)
*
They pray to and worship Mary – an 1854 papal decree (Pope Pius IX) on the Immaculate Conception of Mary that has never been revoked, states, "Let all the children of the Catholic Church ... continue to venerate, invoke, and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, conceived without original sin." Praying to Mary is something that is not spoken of in the Bible and would make her an equal with God, thus she has become a deity to Roman Catholics. Mary, according to the Roman Catholics has become the queen of heaven. When the queen of heaven is referred to in the Bible, she is spoken of negatively. (Jeremiah 7:17-19) Mary needed a savior as much as anyone else and acknowledged this in Luke 1:47.
*
They believe that Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus. In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV's (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. Pope Pius XI officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." The Bible specifically states that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary is a co-redeemer. (John 14:6) God speaks out very clearly against the "Queen of Heaven". (Jeremiah 7:17-19)
*
They believe a baby can be "born again" through baptism by sprinkling, furthermore, they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. The issue of infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it mention anything about babies and salvation. We are all born with sin and that alone disqualifies us from getting to heaven. (Romans 3:23) The act of baptism in the Bible does not guarantee you a place in heaven or make you born again, rather it is an outward act of obedience to God after you have been saved.
*
They believe that Jesus merely made the way open for salvation. In order to enter into that salvation, one must live in obedience to the authority of the papacy. In addition, Jesus' provision for salvation not being complete, the Roman Catholic church offers other means to assure one's salvation. The Roman Catholic church says it alone can grant this essential blessing for full salvation. This supersedes the Bible in which God guarantees our salvation. (John 10:27-29; Romans 10:9-17) Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a mechanic.
*
They believe that we are saved in part by good works and that good works are necessary for salvation. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. Good works come as a result of being saved. (Romans 3:24-28; Ephesians 2:8-9)
*
They believe there are different levels of sin; mortal (deadly) sins in which you are in danger of losing your salvation and venial (minor) sins which are not as serious. Mankind has placed different distinctions on sin (i.e. someone caught lying is not punished as severely as a person who is a murderer). However, in God's eyes, sin is sin, there is no distinction. (Romans 3:23)
Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ. By contrast, the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Bible salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their defense. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Membership or faith in a church does not secure salvation for anyone, but trust Christ and Him alone and you will be saved for all eternity! Would you like to be saved?
Further information can be found in the following books:
50 Years in the "Church" of Rome by Charles Chiniquy
Answers to my Catholic Friends by Thomas Heinze
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop
Understanding Roman Catholicism by Rick Jones
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
thomas more high..... boysville of michigan... we give -U- Less
remember if you get your training at thomas more high..
you don's get more... you get LESS.. education
you don's get more... you get LESS.. education
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Mary is not the “Mother of God.”
Synod Entrusted to Mary's Care
Submitted by Matt Costella on Oct, 19, 2010
A “special synod on the Middle East” is being held in Rome through October 24, 2010. Noting the significance of the date of 11 October 1962 as when
“Pope John XXIII inaugurated the Second Vatican Council on what was then the feast of the Divine Motherhood of Mary” (www. Zenit.org, 10/11/10),
Pope Benedict XVI said, “With this gesture, with this date, Pope John wished to entrust the whole council into the motherly hands and maternal heart of the Madonna.” He continued,
“We too begin on Oct. 11, we too wish to entrust this synod, with all its problems, with all its challenges, with all its hopes to the maternal heart of the Madonna, the Mother of God.”
Once again, the Roman Church has declared herself to be in opposition to biblical truth.
Mary is not the “Mother of God.”
The Bible teaches she was the “mother of our Lord” Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Lk. 1:43).
The Bible teaches that she, like all of us, was in need of a Savior to deliver her from the power, penalty, and one day, the very presence of sin (v. 47). The Mary of Scripture neither hears nor answers prayers.
She has no special powers or position which may be used to entreat the Son of God on behalf of anyone for anything. Fundamentally,
Rome remains a false religious system, “deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).
Submitted by Matt Costella on Oct, 19, 2010
A “special synod on the Middle East” is being held in Rome through October 24, 2010. Noting the significance of the date of 11 October 1962 as when
“Pope John XXIII inaugurated the Second Vatican Council on what was then the feast of the Divine Motherhood of Mary” (www. Zenit.org, 10/11/10),
Pope Benedict XVI said, “With this gesture, with this date, Pope John wished to entrust the whole council into the motherly hands and maternal heart of the Madonna.” He continued,
“We too begin on Oct. 11, we too wish to entrust this synod, with all its problems, with all its challenges, with all its hopes to the maternal heart of the Madonna, the Mother of God.”
Once again, the Roman Church has declared herself to be in opposition to biblical truth.
Mary is not the “Mother of God.”
The Bible teaches she was the “mother of our Lord” Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Lk. 1:43).
The Bible teaches that she, like all of us, was in need of a Savior to deliver her from the power, penalty, and one day, the very presence of sin (v. 47). The Mary of Scripture neither hears nor answers prayers.
She has no special powers or position which may be used to entreat the Son of God on behalf of anyone for anything. Fundamentally,
Rome remains a false religious system, “deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).
roman catholic education is optional.. R--U--dumbed down?
The Bible warns believers in
1 Peter 5:8 that a crafty and powerful enemy is doing whatever he can to attempt to destroy the faith and testimony of those who possess a relationship with Jesus Christ:
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”
This enemy of our souls, Satan himself, is restless and relentless. He is not simply aiming to maim his prey, but to “devour” or “destroy” it.
Sadly, it seems as though the majority of those who profess to know Jesus Christ as their Savior live life day by day without even realizing that they are being constantly attacked! And, of course, one who does not even realize he or she is being attacked is certainly going to be destroyed.
On a personal and social level, threats to the believer exist primarily on three fronts—in the home, in the church and in the world.
This first of a three-part series will consider the threats facing believers from within the church. Subsequent issues of Foundation magazine will address the modern-day threats coming from within the home as well as from the secular world in general.
Yes, it is certainly true—the local church can serve the home and lead family members to a better relationship with God and one another, but the church can also actually aid in destroying the home and the lives of individuals!
Just because a group of people constitute a local church does not mean such an entity brings glory to Jesus Christ.
Believers need to beware of the dangers of churches that preach and embrace a false gospel and false teaching, and they need to be aware of dangers that can arise even within solid, Bible-centered local churches.
Threat #1—A De-emphasis of Doctrine
A serious threat facing churches today is the undermining of the importance of sound (healthy, true) doctrine.
Many church leaders have a tendency to downplay doctrinal distinctives that differentiate one church or denomination from another. “As long as another professing Christian can call Jesus ‘Lord,’ then we can work with him or worship with him” is the cry often heard from many pastors and laypeople.
Such individuals often arrive at an arbitrary list of biblical doctrines they feel are unimportant or unworthy of division or separation between brethren.
Yet the fact remains—the Bible makes much of the importance of doctrine, and a de-emphasis of doctrine fails to grow the believer to the point of spiritual maturity.
Without spiritual maturity and discernment, individuals and families will think, act and make decisions to their own detriment and often actually embrace false doctrine in the end.
For example, a family can attend a church that encourages participation in an ecumenical weekend retreat; the family attends, joins with a group or church that propagates false doctrine (even though their own church might not agree with such) and ends up regularly participating in a Bible study or church event with those whose doctrinal beliefs do not coincide with their own church.
Before even realizing it, they are completely immersed in doctrinal error and embracing it themselves.
Suddenly, they are failing to exercise discernment and are, in reality, being “carried about with every wind of doctrine”—something about which the apostle Paul warned the Ephesian Christians.
Some denominations and churches even boast of their lack of emphasis on doctrine (what they often call “finer points” or “minor points” of doctrine).
They usually make it a point to describe themselves as theologically or doctrinally “inclusive.”
For example, the Evangelical Free Church of America, a denomination that boasts some 1300 churches in the United States, celebrates its doctrinal inclusivity. While the Evangelical Free Church in America does embrace a general “statement of faith,” the denomination also describes three of its distinctives as “inclusive not exclusive,” “evangelical but not separatistic” and “ecumenical in spirit.” The statement of faith could be embraced by most who call themselves evangelical or fundamental, yet what sets the denomination apart is its de-emphasis of doctrine in areas where Christians often disagree.
Threat #2—The Propagation or Toleration of False Doctrine
Of course, the propagation of false doctrine is a serious threat to any church. False doctrine—any teaching that is contrary to the teaching of the holy Scriptures—can shipwreck the lives of individuals and families.
In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, the apostle Paul warned Timothy about false teaching and those who propagate it, and he even described the dangerous consequences of heeding such error:
“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker (a cancerous growth): of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”
Clearly, false teaching—even concerning prophetic truth—can do incalculable harm to the local church.
Throughout the New Testament, the human authors of Scripture realized the dangers inherent in false teaching and warned their readers—including us today—of such teaching and the need to separate from it.
False teaching contains no redeeming value. Therefore, it is unwise and dangerous for any church to tolerate any amount of it.
Not only is the teaching of error a serious threat to the church, but even tolerating those who teach or spread false doctrine is dangerous and worthy of Christ’s stern rebuke.
Notice Jesus Christ’s estimation of a local church that allowed false teaching to be disseminated in the body of believers.
Jesus wrote to the local church at Pergamos: “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam. … So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth” (Rev. 2:14-16). Notice that Jesus Christ’s problem with this church was its toleration of those who embraced false doctrine.
Response to Threats #1 and #2:
Attend a church that makes much of doctrine and opposes and exposes doctrinal error. Christians need to understand that what they believe will determine how they act. A believer’s convictions are predicated upon doctrine. Therefore, to undermine the importance of doctrine, or to tolerate or propagate false doctrine, is a grave and serious offence in the eyes of God.
Only sound doctrine glorifies God and benefits the Christian (Eph. 4:14). Throughout Scripture, God frequently emphasizes the importance of doctrine (notice, for example, 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4).
In fact, God’s Word also gives abundant instruction concerning the believer’s response to any teaching that fails to coincide with biblical truth. The Bible tells us not to listen to false doctrine (Prov. 19:27).
Concerning false teaching and false teachers,
God commands us to “mark” and “avoid” such (Rom. 16:17), to “rebuke them” (Titus 1:13), to “have no fellowship” (Eph. 5:11), to “withdraw yourselves” (2 Thess. 3:6), to “receive him not” (2 Jn. 10-11), to “have no company with him” (2 Thess. 3:14), to “reject him” (Titus 3:10), to “be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17) and to “purge out”
(1 Cor. 5:7). The believer who abides in the will of God and enjoys fellowship with Him will not be a part of a church that minimizes the importance of sound doctrine, that tolerates such or that propagates it.
1 Peter 5:8 that a crafty and powerful enemy is doing whatever he can to attempt to destroy the faith and testimony of those who possess a relationship with Jesus Christ:
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”
This enemy of our souls, Satan himself, is restless and relentless. He is not simply aiming to maim his prey, but to “devour” or “destroy” it.
Sadly, it seems as though the majority of those who profess to know Jesus Christ as their Savior live life day by day without even realizing that they are being constantly attacked! And, of course, one who does not even realize he or she is being attacked is certainly going to be destroyed.
On a personal and social level, threats to the believer exist primarily on three fronts—in the home, in the church and in the world.
This first of a three-part series will consider the threats facing believers from within the church. Subsequent issues of Foundation magazine will address the modern-day threats coming from within the home as well as from the secular world in general.
Yes, it is certainly true—the local church can serve the home and lead family members to a better relationship with God and one another, but the church can also actually aid in destroying the home and the lives of individuals!
Just because a group of people constitute a local church does not mean such an entity brings glory to Jesus Christ.
Believers need to beware of the dangers of churches that preach and embrace a false gospel and false teaching, and they need to be aware of dangers that can arise even within solid, Bible-centered local churches.
Threat #1—A De-emphasis of Doctrine
A serious threat facing churches today is the undermining of the importance of sound (healthy, true) doctrine.
Many church leaders have a tendency to downplay doctrinal distinctives that differentiate one church or denomination from another. “As long as another professing Christian can call Jesus ‘Lord,’ then we can work with him or worship with him” is the cry often heard from many pastors and laypeople.
Such individuals often arrive at an arbitrary list of biblical doctrines they feel are unimportant or unworthy of division or separation between brethren.
Yet the fact remains—the Bible makes much of the importance of doctrine, and a de-emphasis of doctrine fails to grow the believer to the point of spiritual maturity.
Without spiritual maturity and discernment, individuals and families will think, act and make decisions to their own detriment and often actually embrace false doctrine in the end.
For example, a family can attend a church that encourages participation in an ecumenical weekend retreat; the family attends, joins with a group or church that propagates false doctrine (even though their own church might not agree with such) and ends up regularly participating in a Bible study or church event with those whose doctrinal beliefs do not coincide with their own church.
Before even realizing it, they are completely immersed in doctrinal error and embracing it themselves.
Suddenly, they are failing to exercise discernment and are, in reality, being “carried about with every wind of doctrine”—something about which the apostle Paul warned the Ephesian Christians.
Some denominations and churches even boast of their lack of emphasis on doctrine (what they often call “finer points” or “minor points” of doctrine).
They usually make it a point to describe themselves as theologically or doctrinally “inclusive.”
For example, the Evangelical Free Church of America, a denomination that boasts some 1300 churches in the United States, celebrates its doctrinal inclusivity. While the Evangelical Free Church in America does embrace a general “statement of faith,” the denomination also describes three of its distinctives as “inclusive not exclusive,” “evangelical but not separatistic” and “ecumenical in spirit.” The statement of faith could be embraced by most who call themselves evangelical or fundamental, yet what sets the denomination apart is its de-emphasis of doctrine in areas where Christians often disagree.
Threat #2—The Propagation or Toleration of False Doctrine
Of course, the propagation of false doctrine is a serious threat to any church. False doctrine—any teaching that is contrary to the teaching of the holy Scriptures—can shipwreck the lives of individuals and families.
In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, the apostle Paul warned Timothy about false teaching and those who propagate it, and he even described the dangerous consequences of heeding such error:
“But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker (a cancerous growth): of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”
Clearly, false teaching—even concerning prophetic truth—can do incalculable harm to the local church.
Throughout the New Testament, the human authors of Scripture realized the dangers inherent in false teaching and warned their readers—including us today—of such teaching and the need to separate from it.
False teaching contains no redeeming value. Therefore, it is unwise and dangerous for any church to tolerate any amount of it.
Not only is the teaching of error a serious threat to the church, but even tolerating those who teach or spread false doctrine is dangerous and worthy of Christ’s stern rebuke.
Notice Jesus Christ’s estimation of a local church that allowed false teaching to be disseminated in the body of believers.
Jesus wrote to the local church at Pergamos: “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam. … So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth” (Rev. 2:14-16). Notice that Jesus Christ’s problem with this church was its toleration of those who embraced false doctrine.
Response to Threats #1 and #2:
Attend a church that makes much of doctrine and opposes and exposes doctrinal error. Christians need to understand that what they believe will determine how they act. A believer’s convictions are predicated upon doctrine. Therefore, to undermine the importance of doctrine, or to tolerate or propagate false doctrine, is a grave and serious offence in the eyes of God.
Only sound doctrine glorifies God and benefits the Christian (Eph. 4:14). Throughout Scripture, God frequently emphasizes the importance of doctrine (notice, for example, 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4).
In fact, God’s Word also gives abundant instruction concerning the believer’s response to any teaching that fails to coincide with biblical truth. The Bible tells us not to listen to false doctrine (Prov. 19:27).
Concerning false teaching and false teachers,
God commands us to “mark” and “avoid” such (Rom. 16:17), to “rebuke them” (Titus 1:13), to “have no fellowship” (Eph. 5:11), to “withdraw yourselves” (2 Thess. 3:6), to “receive him not” (2 Jn. 10-11), to “have no company with him” (2 Thess. 3:14), to “reject him” (Titus 3:10), to “be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17) and to “purge out”
(1 Cor. 5:7). The believer who abides in the will of God and enjoys fellowship with Him will not be a part of a church that minimizes the importance of sound doctrine, that tolerates such or that propagates it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
