Gay Priests

[Joolye]

The ordination of active homosexuals is to be expected in Protestantism.  If they'll disobey the Church Jesus founded over one thing, they'll disobey her over another.

Certainly is NOT to be expected. The only protestant church (that I know of) that believes it is okay for homosexual men and women to be ordained is the Uniting Church, and there are many within the Uniting Church that are very much against it and are considering forming a Reformed Uniting Church, as the Uniting Church has gone way off track in its thinking. They are the only protestant church that is acting contary to the word of God in the Bible.

Jesus founded the Christian church, not the Roman Catholic Church. He founded the catholic (meaning 'universal' church). Then as time went on the Catholic Church came into existence, and brought in extra things, then time passed, and some people realised that they should go back to the basics - the Word of God - the Bible.

[cmotherofpirl]

Wrong.

Jesus founded one Church in 33 AD.. In the year 106 St ignatius applied the term universal to it (katolikos).

The Church referred to as Roman because St Peter head of the Church went to Rome and died there along with St. Paul during persecutions under Nero.

Around 300 Constantine the emperor had a vision and stopped killing the Christians, so the church was safe from constant harrassment.

Between 300 and 397AD the Church decided which books out of the many it would call scripture, which writings it would accept as authoritative. THey had many many gospels, letters to choose from. THey picked the ones that best described the Church teraching at that time.

So the New Testament came AFTER the church had been around almost 350 years.

This is when the New Testament was finalized.

So you can't say they went back to the basics, when there was no basics to go back to.

THe New Testament came FROM the Church, not the other way around.

[ironmonk]

Certainly is NOT to be expected. The only protestant church (that I know of) that believes it is okay for homosexual men and women to be ordained is the Uniting Church, and there are many within the Uniting Church that are very much against it and are considering forming a Reformed Uniting Church, as the Uniting Church has gone way off track in its thinking. They are the only protestant church that is acting contary to the word of God in the Bible.

Jesus founded the Christian church, not the Roman Catholic Church. He founded the catholic (meaning 'universal' church). Then as time went on the Catholic Church came into existence, and brought in extra things, then time passed, and some people realised that they should go back to the basics - the Word of God - the Bible.

Many of the protestant churches are now seen being overcome by the netherworld... with the change in moral teachings it is quite obvious.

Please read my posts on:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...?showtopic=1491

Also, all the Churches in the bible were loyal to the Head Bishop - Peter, and his successors... Christians all over the world have always kept records, all those records prove that the Catholic Church was first.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

Ephesus (Ephesians - A Catholic Church) From 27 B.C. till a little after A.D. 297, Ephesus was the capital of the proconsular province of Asia, a direct dependency of the Roman Senate. Though unimportant politically, it was noted for its extensive commerce. Many illustrious persons were born at Ephesus It was through the Jews that Christianity was first introduced into Ephesus. The original community was under the leadership of Apollo (I Cor., i, 12). They were disciples of St. John the Baptist, and were converted by Aquila and Priscilla. Then came St. Paul, who lived three years at Ephesus to establish and organize the new church; he was wont to teach in the schola or lecture-hall of the rhetorician Tyrannus (Acts, xix, 9) and performed there many miracles.. The Church of Ephesus was committed to his disciple, St. Timothy, a native of the city (I Tim., 1, 3; II Tim., 1, 18; iv, 12). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Esphesians was not perhaps addressed directly to them; it may be only a circular letter sent by him to several churches. The sojourn and death of the Apostle St. John at Ephesus are not mentioned in the New Testament, but both are attested as early as the latter part of the second century by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4), Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xx1), Clement of Alexandria, the "Acta Joannis", and a little earlier by St. Justin and the Montanists. About 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch, having been greeted at Smyrna by messengers of the Church of Ephesus, sent to it one of his seven famous epistles. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was, next to Antioch, the chief centre of Christianity in Asia Minor. In the year 190 its bishop, St. Polycrates, held a council to consider the paschal controversy and declared himself in favour of the Quartodeciman practice; nevertheless the Ephesian Church soon conformed in this particular to the practice of all the other Churches. It seems certain that the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), confirmed for Ephesus its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole "diocese" or civil territory of Asia Minor. Ephesus was taken in 655 and 717 by the Arabs. Later it became the capital of the theme of the Thracesians. During the Iconoclastic period two bishops of Ephesus suffered martyrdom, Hypatius in 735 and Theophilus in the ninth century.

Corinth (Corinthians - Another Catholic Church)

St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

Antioch - Just read all of St Ignatius writings i've posted here, A very Catholic Church

Since the city of Antioch was a great centre of government and civilization, the Christian religion spread thither almost from the beginning. Nicolas, one of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, was from Antioch (Acts, vi, 5). The seed of Christ's teaching was carried to Antioch by some disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, who fled from Jerusalem during the persecution that followed upon the martyrdom of St. Stephen (Acts, xi, 19, 20). They preached the teachings of Jesus, not only to the Jewish colony but also to the Greeks or Gentiles, and soon large numbers were converted. The mother-church of Jerusalem having heard of the occurrence sent Barnabas thither, who called Saul from Tarsus to Antioch (ib., 22, 25). There they laboured for a whole year with such success that the followers of Christ were acknowledged as forming a distinct community, "so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians" (ib., 26). Their charity was exhibited by the offerings sent to the famine-stricken brethren in Judea. St. Peter himself came to Antioch (Gal., ii, 11), probably about the year 44, and according to all appearances lived there for some time. The community of Antioch, being composed in part of Greeks or Gentiles, had views of its own on the character and conditions of the new religion. There was a faction among the disciples in Jerusalem which maintained that the Gentile converts to Christianity should pass first through Judaism by submitting to the observances of the Mosaic law, such as circumcision and the like. This attitude seemed to close the gates to the Gentiles, and was strongly contested by the Christians of Antioch. Their plea for Christian liberty was defended by their leaders, Paul and Barnabas, and received full recognition in the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 22- 32). Later on St. Paul defends this principle at Antioch even in the face of Peter (Gal., ii, 11). Antioch became soon a centre of missionary propaganda. It was thence that St. Paul and his companions started on their journey for the conversion of the nations. The Church of Antioch was also fully organized almost from the beginning. It was one of the few original churches which preserved complete the catalogue of its bishops. The first of these bishops, Evodius, reaches back to the Apostolic age. At a very early date the Christian community of Antioch became the central point of all the Christian interests in the East. After the fall of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) it was the real metropolis of Christianity in those countries.

In the meantime the number of Christians grew to such an extent, that in the first part of the fourth century Antioch was looked upon as practically a Christian city. Many churches were erected there for the accommodation of the worshippers of Christ. In the fourth century there was still a basilica called "the ancient" and "apostolic". It was probably one of the oldest architectural monuments of Christianity; an ancient tradition maintained that it was originally the house of Theophilus, the friend of St. Luke (Acts, i, 1). There were also sanctuaries dedicated to the memory of the great Apostles, Peter, Paul, and John. Saint Augustine speaks (Sermo, ccc., n. 5) of a "basilica of the holy Machabees" at Antioch, a famous shrine from the fourth to the sixth century (Card. Rampolla, in "Bessarione", Rome, 1897-98, I-II). Among the pagan temples dedicated to Christian uses was the celebrated Temple of Fortune (Tychæion). In it the Christians of Antioch enshrined the body of their great bishop and martyr Ignatius. There was also a martyrium or memorial shrine of Babylas, a third-century martyr and bishop of Antioch, who suffered death in the reign of Decius. For the development of Christian domestic architecture in the vicinity of the great city see De Vogué, "Architecture civile et religieuse de la Syrie Centrale" (Paris, 1867-77), and the similar work of Howard Crosby Butler (New York, 1903). The very important monastic architecture of the vicinity will be described under SIMEON STYLITES and BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. The Emperor Constantine (306-337) built a church there, which he adorned so richly that it was the admiration of all contemporaries (St. John Chrys., "Hom. in Ep. ad Eph.", X, 2; Eus., "Vita Const.", III, 50, and "De laud. Const.", c. 9). It was completely pillaged, but not destroyed, by Chosroes in 540. the Church of Antioch showed itself worthy of being the metropolis of Christianity in the east. In the ages of persecution it furnished a very large quota of martyrs, the bishops setting the example. It may suffice to mention St. Ignatius at the beginning of the second century; Asclepiades under Septimius Severus (193-211); and Babylas under Decius (249-251). It produced also a number of great men, who either in writing or otherwise distinguished themselves in the service of Christianity. The letters of the afore-mentioned St. Ignatius are very famous. Theophilus wrote in the latter part of the second century an elaborate defense and explanation of the Christian religion. In later ages there were such men as Flavian, who did much to reunite the Christians of Antioch divided by the Arian disputes; St. John Chrysostom, afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, and Theodoret, afterwards Bishop of Cyrus in Syria. Several heresies took their rise in Antioch. In the third century Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, professed erroneous doctrines. Arianism had its original root not in Alexandria but in the great Syrian city, Antioch; Nestorianism sprang from it through Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople. A peculiar feature of Antiochene life was the frequency of conflict between the Jews and the Christians; several grievous seditions and massacres are noted by the historians from the end of the fourth to the beginning of the seventh century (Leclercq, Dict. d'arch. et de liturg. chrét., I, col 2396).

Rome (Central for Christianity; Peter was the leader of Christians when Jesus went to heaven, authority given to him by Jesus... Peter was the Bishop of Rome; Peter's replacement, would have the same authority as Peter) The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world.It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. A.D. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome. .

The word Catholic comes from the Greek word that means "Universal"...

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. .

Peter was the leader, he was in Rome, he wrote from Rome (1 Peter 5:13), he died in Rome. You have a right to live in err, as for me and the 1 Billion Catholics in the world, I think we'll listen to the first Christians, from the oldest organization on earth, The Catholic Church, built by Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

...

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Augustine

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Dave]

I apologize, I'm sure I overreacted. I still disagree with y'all though, but currently I'm too tired to know why and/or expound on it. Perhaps tomorrow...

Ohhhhh . . . you know I forgive you! C'mere, bro . . . ((((HUGS)))) :D

[Joolye]

So, you Catholics believe that priests, bishops, and popes should not get married, yet Peter, the first head of the church was married.

[cmotherofpirl]

Remember there are 22 different branches in the Catholic Church.

Some have married priests like the Anglican and some of the Eastern, the Romans do not.

There are good arguments for an against it. It is a discpline, not a doctrine or dogma, so it can be changed as the Church sees fit.

I am personally against it. I have seen too many preacher's kids. THere are also so many strains and stresses on a marriage today. When you are married your spouse must come first. THat cannot happen if you are a priest. And remember divorce and remarriage are unacceptable in the Church.

[vianney]

st paul was celibate. You saying st paul was wrong?

And by the way I thought I might just throw this thought out there, Among ppl who get divorces the number one occupation of one of the spouses is a protestant minister. Think about that, out of all the occupations a protestant minister has the number one divorce rate percentage wise. HMMMMMMM interesting...oh yah and the last time I looked in my state there are more priests then there are ministers, the lutheran and methodist churches in my county had to shut down because no one could celebrate teh service.

[[jas]]

st paul was celibate. You saying st paul was wrong?

Did anyone say that?

Just because he was, though, doesn't mean everyone has to.

[cmotherofpirl]

THa is absolutely true.

[Good Friday]

So, you Catholics believe that priests, bishops, and popes should not get married, yet Peter, the first head of the church was married.

1. There's no evidence that St. Peter returned to his wife after he left to follow Jesus. Jesus told His disciples that if they love family more than Him, they are not worthy of Him. Although there is a record of St. Peter having been married prior to following Jesus, there's no record of him returning to his wife.

2. So, you Protestants believe that ministers should get married, yet Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles wasn't married.

3. Jesus Himself recommended priestly celibacy when He said that some people become eunuchs for the kingdom of God, and that whoever can accept it should accept it. St. Paul reaffirmed this recommendation when he acknowledged that he was celibate, and that he recommended celibacy to others.

4. The priesthood is not a requirement, therefore no one is required to be celibate in the Catholic Church. The priesthood is a vocation; you either have it or you don't. It's a calling from God, it's not something you just choose to do. If God calls you to be a priest in the Latin Rite, then He is also calling you to be celibate. If not, then that's fine too. All the vocations -- married, priestly, religious, single -- are important.

[vianney]

So, you Catholics believe that priests, bishops, and popes should not get married, yet Peter, the first head of the church was married.

Did anyone say that?

Well you brought up the fact that peter was married and when i brought up the fact that st paul was not all the sudden you flip that on me...You cant have it both ways buddy

[[jas]]

I brought up nothing of the sort, my post you quoted was my first post in this thread.

What I'm saying though, is that if Peter was married and Paul wasn't, shouldn't that mean it's okay either way?

[ironmonk]

When Peter became an Apostle, he became celibate.

Here is a little history.... I know there is more, but I've already spent about an hour to an hour and half looking through the first 400 years of Christian writings...

Thus far....

Jerome - AGAINST JOVINIANUS, BOOK I (ON MARRIAGE AND VIRGINITY) 17. But if Enoch was translated, and Noah was preserved at the deluge, I do not think that Enoch was translated because he had a wife, but because he was[2] the first to call upon God and to believe in the Creator; and the Apostle Paul fully instructs us concerning him in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Noah, moreover, who was preserved as a kind of second root for the human race, must of course be preserved together with his wife and sons, although in this there is a Scripture mystery. The ark,[3] according to the Apostle Peter, was a type of the Church, in which eight souls were saved. When Noah entered into it, both he and his sons were separated from their wives; but when he landed from it, they united in pairs, and what had been separated in the ark, that is, in the Church, was joined together in the intercourse of the world. And at the same time if the ark had many compartments and little chambers, and was made with second and third stories, and was filled with different beasts, and was furnished with dwellings, great or small, according to the kind of animal, I think all this diversity in the compartments was a figure of the manifold character of the Church

26. ....

Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. Yet Jovinianus, who has arrayed against us Zacharias and Elizabeth, Peter and his wife's mother, should know, that John was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, that is, a virgin was the offspring of marriage, the Gospel of the law, chastity of matrimony; so that by a virgin prophet the virgin Lord might be both announced and baptized. But we might say concerning Peter, that he had a mother-in-law when he believed, and no longer had a wife, although in the[1] "Sentences" we read of both his wife and daughter. But for the present our argument must be based wholly on Scripture. He has made his appeal to the Apostles, because he thinks that they, who hold the chief authority in our moral system and are the typical Christian teachers, were not virgins. If, then, we allow that they were not virgins (and, with the exception of Peter, the point cannot be proved), yet I must tell him that it is to the Apostles that the words of Isaiah relate:[2] "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah." So, then, they who were by birth Jews could not under the Gospel recover the virginity which they had lost in Judaism. And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask,[3] he requested John to ask. And after the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord had risen,[4] they both ran to the sepulchre, but John outran Peter. And when they were fishing in the ship on the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus stood upon the shore, and the Apostles knew not who it was they saw;[5] the virgin alone recognized a virgin, and said to Peter, "It is the Lord." Again, after hearing the prediction that he must be bound by another, and led whither he would not, and must suffer on the cross. Peter said, "Lord what shall this man do?" being unwilling to desert John, with whom he had always been united. Our Lord said to him, "What is that to thee if I wish him so to be?" Whence the saying went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die. Here we have a proof that virginity does not die, and that the defilement of marriage is not washed away by the blood of martyrdom, but virginity abides with Christ, and its sleep is not death but a passing to another state. If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say,[1] the Church was rounded upon Peter: although[2] elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the eider: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them,[3] " Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you," and, 4 " He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all," would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved. We maybe sure that John was then a boy because ecclesiastical history most clearly proves that he lived to the reign of Trajan, that is, he fell asleep in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, as I have briefly noted in my treatise on Illustrious Men.[5] Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle--the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future Tertullian, moreover, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: "The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ;" Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert,[1] " Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says,[2] " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God," and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother[3] was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

Some of that applies to the fact that it was Peter who authority as Head Bishop...

It's also worthy to note that Peter spoke of how on the ark, since it was sort of a Church, that the men and women were seperated... One can logically draw the conclusion that this was brought up because Peter was in the Church and celibate.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 3, 2003 by ironmonk

[Winchester]

Why all the controversy? I hope priests are gay. I myself am sometimes gay, though I am given to fits of melancholy. What do we care if a priest is in a good mood or not.

You people are sourpusses.

Seriously: "WE" Catholics don't all think celibacy should be maintained as a discipline. Several Rites allow married priests yet enjoy full communion with Rome, so obviously there are quite a few loyal Catholics who support married priests, within their own rite (pun intended).

[skuba steve]

im can't be bothered reading all that... just thought i'd add this...

this is not my own view but if you actually see that way that Gay churches justify being homosexual through scripture...

you will find that their argument is very logical and understandable...

they say (and it is true) that the homosexual activity in the bible is much different to our intepretation of it today.

Don't be so quick to judge... im not saying what's right or wrong... but they are very strong in their convictions and can back them up with scripture.

But hey...

In God's eyes, what's the diff between a gay priest that brings stacks of good stuff to the world, and someone who breaks speed limits continuously?

[Winchester]

People who speed get into a lot of rear end collisions. It's dangerous to speed.

[ironmonk]

im can't be bothered reading all that... just thought i'd add this...

this is not my own view but if you actually see that way that Gay churches justify being homosexual through scripture...

you will find that their argument is very logical and understandable...

they say (and it is true) that the homosexual activity in the bible is much different to our intepretation of it today.

Don't be so quick to judge... im not saying what's right or wrong... but they are very strong in their convictions and can back them up with scripture.

But hey...

In God's eyes, what's the diff between a gay priest that brings stacks of good stuff to the world, and someone who breaks speed limits continuously?

I'll keep this short for you.

I guess the bible was too much for you to read also.

Please stop wasting our time.

Read it, or leave it.

-ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

I have read the Scripture, and their argument is bogus.

Leviticus ( which is what I am reading this week) is very clear:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Lev 20:13

There is no wiggle room in that sentence.

THis is the problem with private interpretation of Scripture. You can make it say anything you want if you squeeze it hard enough.

[skuba steve]

gay people also tend to sustain rear end damage.

Iron Monk, I was just trying to say that these people believe just as much as you that the way they live is the right way to live.

You just condemn them, why not try to help them?

[Joolye]

I'll keep this short for you.

I guess the bible was too much for you to read also.

Please stop wasting our time.

Read it, or leave it.

Don't be nasty, Ironmonk. That wasn't nice.

1. There's no evidence that St. Peter returned to his wife after he left to follow Jesus. Jesus told His disciples that if they love family more than Him, they are not worthy of Him. Although there is a record of St. Peter having been married prior to following Jesus, there's no record of him returning to his wife.

yes, but the Bible doesn't approve of divorce, which is what you are implying (or separation)

2. So, you Protestants believe that ministers should get married, yet Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles wasn't married.

We don't believe that minister MUST be married. They can be married OR single. We don't say that they SHOULD get married.

3. Jesus Himself recommended priestly celibacy when He said that some people become eunuchs for the kingdom of God, and that whoever can accept it should accept it. St. Paul reaffirmed this recommendation when he acknowledged that he was celibate, and that he recommended celibacy to others.

Agreed.

4. The priesthood is not a requirement, therefore no one is required to be celibate in the Catholic Church. The priesthood is a vocation; you either have it or you don't. It's a calling from God, it's not something you just choose to do. If God calls you to be a priest in the Latin Rite, then He is also calling you to be celibate. If not, then that's fine too. All the vocations -- married, priestly, religious, single -- are important.

I see the benefits of singleness in ministry.

I have read the Scripture, and their argument is bogus.

Leviticus ( which is what I am reading this week) is very clear:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Lev 20:13

There is no wiggle room in that sentence.

Here is an arguement for homosexuality:

Countering anti-homosexual interpretation of scripture

First of all, if you want to be against homosexuality, you can find those passages in the bible and I'm not going to convince you.

Also, if you don't believe you are interpreting the bible, then once again I'm not going to convince you.

However, interpretation is unavoidable, everybody does it. I don't see one handed, one eyed, Christians walking around. So either their hands and eyes have never caused them to sin, or they interpret what they read. So the question is "how do we interpret?", not "whether we interpret?".

I would argue that we must interpret all of the bible in the light of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the bible.

For me, this calls rules into question. Jesus was a confronter of authorities and a breaker of rules. Particularly rules that excluded people. So I have a problem with hard and fast exclusionary rules.

However, you may not see Jesus that way, so I'll continue.

What about the NT concept of "judging by their fruits"? My testimony is, my witness if you like to this, is that both lay and ordained homosexual people that I've known have born great fruit for the church and for justice in the world. This experience makes an anti-homosexual stance hard to take. From what I've seen committed homosexual relationships are no more damaging than committed heterosexual relationships. And in fact homosexual relationships are under enormous pressure in society, despite legal changes.

If this is not your experience of homosexual people, then you won't agree. But please don't write homosexual people off if you don't know any.

Finally we get to the texts.

I find the argument by Wink compelling:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

that the church is so selective about biblical sexual ethics that we can't accurately speak of holding to a biblical position.

We tend to ignore the biblical positions against:

* intercourse during menstruation

* celibacy

* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)

* naming sexual organs

* nudity (under certain conditions)

* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)

* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)

* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

And the bible allowed things we today condemn:

* prostitution

* polygamy

* levirate marriage

* sex with slaves

* concubinage

* treatment of women as property

* very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

So the church is selective about what biblical sexual ethics it holds to and it is consistent for the church to disagree with the bible about homosexuality. In doing so it seeks to follow Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures.

However, you may not agree so we'll look at the texts.

The Leviticus ones can be said to be not applicable to Christians. How many Christians follow the rules about the uncleanliness of menstruating women? However, if they are applicable, then they advocate death for men who have sex with other men. I don't hear many Christians advocating that (thankfully).

Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual rape, which is not being advocated. I'm sure everyone in the church is against all the men in a village surrounding a house and demanding that the men inside come out so they can have sex with them.

Rom 1, refers to people who have replaced God for an idol and engage in same gender sex. This is what happened in cultic sex practices at the time. People in faithful same sex relationships, who confess Jesus as LORD, are not replacing God for an idol -- they are followers of Jesus. This passage is not talking about them.

I may have missed some references, but I think this leaves the NT occurrences of the greek word 'arsenokoite' -- literally a "man-bedder". There are arguments over the meaning of this word. Some say it refers to male-prostitutes. But whatever it refers to I would argue that it is not talking about the concept of homosexuality as we know it today. This way of thinking about homosexuals was not around 2000 years ago.

When arsenokoite was being condemned the idea of "orientation", the idea of faithful same-sex relationships just wasn't around. I don't think that Paul was talking about the same thing that we are taking about today.

Let's not debate about what this person has said. I am not endorsing it. I do not approve of it. I am just showing you how some people think. I do not agree with it. I do not support it. I am against homosexuals being ordained as ministers. Clear?