More Mel...

[Paladin D]

the church has no teaching that i'm aware of (show me doctrine and i'll be more informed) that jesus was unmarried.  it has been assumed, since there's no mention of it and paul spoke less than highly of marriage, but there's no direct teaching that he was not that i'm aware of.

It's called "Apostolic Tradition". We don't believe in sola scriptura.

[ryanmeyersmusic]

there's a difference in tradition and Tradition.

show me where it's been taught as doctrine by the Church rather than just saying "yes it has, yes it has, nanny nanny boo boo"

[ryanmeyersmusic]

and now i really am leaving ;)

[vianney]

from ewtn.com

Ancient tradition records that the Apostles--Saint Peter included--abstained from marital relations, once called by the Lord. So if we are to draw upon the Apostles as examples, I wonder what sort of women will be looking to become wives of priests, and how many priests will really look for marriage, under that condition. Furthermore, every response I have thus far received on this topic which favors married clergy FAILS to even address the fact that our Lord, High Priest and source of all New Testament priesthood, was Himself a CELIBATE PRIEST. Anything less is a compromise. Marriage is a vocation, and the priesthood is a vocation, and while there are compelling reasons against mixing them, I have yet to hear of a compelling reason for joining them.

Thanks, Donnie

Father Echert

[ironmonk]

ryan,

Jesus was not married.

Jesus is God, His bride is the Church, not a woman.

There is not even any evidence that He was married.

If He was married, it would have been written of in the Early Church Father's writings.

Jesus is a fact. It's not ancient history before people kept records, it was only 2000 years ago, and we have volumes of information written about Jesus and the Apostles, from the first 400 years of writings.

It is ridiculous to say "Jesus might have been married, no where says He wasn't"

Marriage is not a thing taken lightly... it is something that is Sacred and before God. It is a big occasion, it's a major part of one's life. If Jesus was married, it would be in the Bible and taught by the Church. Especially back then, marriage was something that entire communities were involved in. Don't you think if the Son of God was married, someone would have wrote about it? Don't you think it would have went into the Bible?

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

ryan,

Jesus was not married.

Jesus is God, His bride is the Church, not a woman.

There is not even any evidence that He was married.

If He was married, it would have been written of in the Early Church Father's writings.

Jesus is a fact. It's not ancient history before people kept records, it was only 2000 years ago, and we have volumes of information written about Jesus and the Apostles, from the first 400 years of writings.

It is ridiculous to say "Jesus might have been married, no where says He wasn't"

Marriage is not a thing taken lightly... it is something that is Sacred and before God. It is a big occasion, it's a major part of one's life. If Jesus was married, it would be in the Bible and taught by the Church. Especially back then, marriage was something that entire communities were involved in. Don't you think if the Son of God was married, someone would have wrote about it? Don't you think it would have went into the Bible?

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

I have heard some scoffers say things like "the Church kept it from people so that they would believe, because if it got out, everyone would loose faith"

I can hear them now saying the same thing about this. If Jesus was married, then they would have taught it from the beginning, and there would not be any reason to hide it.

That is said by atheists or people who know very little about God. They try to make God a philosophical thing, instead of the fact that He is I AM. They feel that if they can prove the Catholic Church is hiding something, then there is no God. Because if the Catholic Church is wrong, then there is no God....

but... the Catholic Church is not wrong, and there is a God. There is far too much historical, and scientific proof to show that there is God, and the truest way to worship Him is in the Catholic Church. (See "The Reasons to Believe" by Peter Kreft)

God is not a philosophical thing that can change, God is not made up in our minds... God is more real than you and me, and is beyond our understanding.

I really do not understand how anyone cannot believe... it's more clear than a cloudless day.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

Hey!!!!! I have that crucifix you got as your avatar!! St.Bendict!

Yeah. Saint Benedict Rocks. I wear his medal. Do you wear it?

GET AWAY SATAN!!

[Jake Huether]

ryan,

Jesus was not married.

Jesus is God, His bride is the Church, not a woman.

There is not even any evidence that He was married.

If He was married, it would have been written of in the Early Church Father's writings.

Jesus is a fact. It's not ancient history before people kept records, it was only 2000 years ago, and we have volumes of information written about Jesus and the Apostles, from the first 400 years of writings.

It is ridiculous to say "Jesus might have been married, no where says He wasn't"

Marriage is not a thing taken lightly... it is something that is Sacred and before God. It is a big occasion, it's a major part of one's life. If Jesus was married, it would be in the Bible and taught by the Church. Especially back then, marriage was something that entire communities were involved in. Don't you think if the Son of God was married, someone would have wrote about it? Don't you think it would have went into the Bible?

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Thanks Ironmonk. I thought no one would bring that up.

The Church teaches that WE are the Bride of Christ. Christ is the Groom! If Christ had a wife on earth, than he commited adultary, according to his own words!

He is our Groom! No one elses!

[MC Just]

Yeah.  Saint Benedict Rocks.  I wear his medal.  Do you wear it?

GET AWAY SATAN!!

I wear it so much, that the silver is wearing off, now it looks copper.

[ryanmeyersmusic]

so since both myself and Jesus are the bridegrooms of Katie Meyers she's commiting adultery?

I'm not trying to say that I believe the claims of Jesus being married. I too think that it would have been pretty obvious from accounts of the Gospels and other early Church teachings. The way Paul talks about marriage really seals it for me. What I'm trying to say that the notion that he was isn't an end-all.

AND

EWTN, try as they may, is NOT a part of the ecclesial authority of the Church.

[Jake Huether]

so since both myself and Jesus are the bridegrooms of Katie Meyers she's commiting adultery?

I'm not trying to say that I believe the claims of Jesus being married.  I too think that it would have been pretty obvious from accounts of the Gospels and other early Church teachings.  The way Paul talks about marriage really seals it for me.  What I'm trying to say that the notion that he was isn't an end-all.

AND

EWTN, try as they may, is NOT a part of the ecclesial authority of the Church.

No, because our marriage is merely a Sacrament. It is a SIGN of our marriage with Christ.

Katie Meyers is yours. You and her are a part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride. The Church is Plural. Christ is singular. He can't have another Bride! He instituted the Sacrament.

The Sacrament, in essence, is our "practice" for the real deal in heaven! In other words, when you married Katie you were called to practice becoming Christ's bride a specific way. Priests are called to practice becoming Christ's bride a whole other way. Christ didn't need "practice". His Love is perfect. He is the Groom! The individuals that make up Christ's Bride, the Church are all BECOMING perfect. The Church is Perfect (and it will be His Spottless Bride on the Wedding day). But the individuals that make up the Bride, are not perfect. We need to become perfect through the Sacraments. Christ is Perfect, was Perfect, and will always be perfect. He doesn't need Sacraments! He IS the Sacrament.

Hope that helps solidify Ironmonk and my point.

[Jake Huether]

No, because our marriage is merely a Sacrament. It is a SIGN of our marriage with Christ.

Katie Meyers is yours. You and her are a part of the Church. The Church is Christ's bride. The Church is Plural. Christ is singular. He can't have another Bride! He instituted the Sacrament.

The Sacrament, in essence, is our "practice" for the real deal in heaven! In other words, when you married Katie you were called to practice becoming Christ's bride a specific way. Priests are called to practice becoming Christ's bride a whole other way. Christ didn't need "practice". His Love is perfect. He is the Groom! The individuals that make up Christ's Bride, the Church are all BECOMING perfect. The Church is Perfect (and it will be His Spottless Bride on the Wedding day). But the individuals that make up the Bride, are not perfect. We need to become perfect through the Sacraments. Christ is Perfect, was Perfect, and will always be perfect. He doesn't need Sacraments! He IS the Sacrament.

Hope that helps solidify Ironmonk and my point.

To add. This is why earthly marriage is "till death do you part". Because when you die, then the Sacrament is completed. You are no longer Katie's and she is no longer yours. She then does not commit adultery in becoming Christ's Bride, and neither do you.

Christ on the other hand is betrothed to the Church as a whole. He was, is and will be the Bridegroom till the end of the world! So, he cannot have taken a single earthly wife.

[BLAZEr]

I'm not trying to say that I believe the claims of Jesus being married.  I too think that it would have been pretty obvious from accounts of the Gospels and other early Church teachings.  The way Paul talks about marriage really seals it for me.  What I'm trying to say that the notion that he was isn't an end-all.

Ryan I hate to break it to you here, but you are treading dangerously close to heresy . . . By your logic you could say the following:

I never mentions in the bible that Jesus wasn't gay . . . so maybe he was, it's open.

It never mentions in the bible that Jesus didn't have a sexual attraction to animals, so maybe he did . . . it's open?

Read Matthew 19:11-12 . . . notice that Jesus says "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." Do you think that Christ would have not been able to receive this teaching that HE HIMSELF WAS TEACHING??

Also, note that that when Peter says who people claim to be he says "John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah" . . . all are celibates! No one is calling him "Moses" or "Abraham" or anyone of the married Jewish Fathers . . . it's important that he mentions the Three Prophets who represent a celibate life consecrated to God . . . this is also important as to why both Moses and Elijah appear in the Transfiguration . . . to give dignity to married life and celibacy . . . but that's another issue.

And if EWTN is not ecclesial authority (and I agree its not, but their theology is formed by ecclesial authority) . . . maybe you would do well to read ANYTHING the church has ever said about Christ and celibacy . . . the Magisterium is also infallible in the unchanged apostolic tradition . . . but at the very least I found some nice African Bishops who together wrote a pastoral on Priestly Celibacy and how it relates to Christ's celibacy . . . you should read it http://www.sacbc.org.za/st15aug2003.htm

Edited November 6, 2003 by BLAZEr

[ryanmeyersmusic]

marriage and homosexuality or even beastiality are equals?

all i've asked for is the church teaching on the matter and have yet to get anything in reply except for "it's there" there have been 2000 years worth of documents for you to pull from and set me straight with.

c'mon... heresy?

[BLAZEr]

marriage and homosexuality or even beastiality are equals?

all i've asked for is the church teaching on the matter and have yet to get anything in reply except for "it's there"  there have been 2000 years worth of documents for you to pull from and set me straight with.

c'mon...  heresy?

Notice I didn't say "gay acts" or "bestial acts" . . . no, they are not the same as marriage . . . and I didn't imply that either . . .

Did you even read what the African Bishops wrote? Did you Read the Scripture passages I shared with you?

Did you not understand what it means to say that The Church is Infallible in her constant Traditions. You're right there is not a dogma about this . . . but Dogma's are only defined when heresy is spread . . . this is a NEW heresy . . . no one for 1900 yeards doubted that Chirst was not-married (hence the constant tradition thing) . . . and its being suggested today . . . maybe it does need to be defined . . .

Either way, yes you are suggesting things that are HERETICAL . . . watch yourself. And submit yourself to the Church on this one.

[BLAZEr]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1618: Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Edited November 7, 2003 by BLAZEr

[ryanmeyersmusic]

anyway, i think i'm going to go ahead and step out of this conversation as it's painting me in a corner i don't desire or deserve to be in.

i don't think that jesus was married, i already said that. i do think that, to quote st. john, "If every one of [the things jesus had done] were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (21.25)

as long as it doesn't insinuate SIN, there's no reason to get in a tiff about whether or not it happened. the argument based on the celibate priesthood doesn't even make sense. regardless of what ewtn says, peter was married and there's no reason to believe that they remained celibate. it wasn't quite the same situation as mary and joseph, being that one of them was "full of grace." it's sure that they were CHASTE, since that's what we're called to in marriage, but not CELIBATE.

Anyway, this isn't really a debate worth having since I don't even believe that Jesus was married. It just amazes me at how easily people get riled up over something that still seems to me to be a non-issue.

[BLAZEr]

But Ryan, don't you see . . . this is not a "non-issue" . . .

It's very important to the understanding of the Church's relationship to the Lamb, of its Theological understanding of the the Mass, of the Nature of God, and of the Role of Marriage in Family Life . . .

If Christ was married, then the Church is False . . . because she understands certain things about Herself only in relation to the fact that Christ is Married Only and exclusively to HER . . .

[BLAZEr]

as long as it doesn't insinuate SIN, there's no reason to get in a tiff about whether or not it happened.  the argument based on the celibate priesthood doesn't even make sense.  regardless of what ewtn says, peter was married and there's no reason to believe that they remained celibate.

Again, you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that Peter and his wife (if she was even alive) were not having conjugal relations . . . the evidence is that the Church required this of her priests. The idea that giving up "wife, and mother, and brother" meant giving up conjugal rights too is a very clearly defined tradition, not matter how much people would like to obscure it. The church allowed men who were married to become priests, but they had to give up their conjugal rights, this is why their wives had to consent.

Did you ever notice that the Church has NEVER allowed a Priest to GET married? That's because in order for it to be a sacramentally valid marriage he would have to consummate his marriage and PRIESTS HAD TO BE CELIBATES!

Big time error, here bud.

  it wasn't quite the same situation as mary and joseph, being that one of them was "full of grace."  it's sure that they were CHASTE, since that's what we're called to in marriage, but not CELIBATE.

Funny, Mary is Full of Grace but Christ is not? Of course he is . . . He's FULL OF GRACE because He IS GRACE! He is what Mary was full of! And it has been the Church's constant teaching that Mary is EVER VIRGIN . . . that means no sex before, during, or after The Birth of Christ . . . Perpetual Virginity . . . The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the 'three chapters' condemns those who deny: that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her ...

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

See what I mean by heresy!

[Dave]

To add to what Ironmonk et al have already said, since Jesus was fully God as well as truly man, it would seem, well, profane for Him to have an earthly wife. It's only natural that His wife (if His Church could be called that) would be heavenly, and so His Bride is naturally the Church.