What follows is a debate that took place on my Facebook page last October (2009). It really shouldn’t be allowed to slip down the wormhole of past FB posts. It’s worth reviewing. Perhaps my RC sparring partner, Bryan Cross, will want to add something to this.
It began with me posting a quotation from Martin Luther on enforced priestly celibacy:
. . . the pope has as little power to give this command as he has to forbid eating, drinking, the natural processes. . . No one, therefore, is duty bound to keep this commandment, and the pope is responsible for all the sins that are committed against this ordinance, for all the souls lost thereby, and for all the consciences thereby confused and tortured (Plass, What Luther Says, p. 888).
That was the catalyst for the following debate. (The reader should know that my FB rules forbid posting links to Roman Catholic propaganda sites in comments. That will explain a few lacunae in the flow of the argument.)
1. Kevin Branson: The Church has deemed it best that her ministers be single, and celibate, as Paul deemed it best. At present, the Church therefore requires a vow of celibacy from priests. Someday, that could change, and in certain situations exceptions are made even now, but ordinarily, them’s the rules. Nobody puts a gun to a priest’s head and forces them to take a vow of celibacy, nor did anyone force Luther to do so. It was his own choice, as it was his own choice to break his vow of celibacy.
2. Shawn Honey: Celibacy was chosen by Paul and he recommended it to others; it was not bound upon him from the outside, nor did he bind others to it. Peter chose to marry as did other Apostles and, presumably, countless elders (“husband of one wife…”). I think the point pertains to whether a church has the right to bind the consciences of its ministers in a way that Scripture seems to speak against.
3. Craig Lawrence Brann: True as Mr. Branson’s points are, it remains that the Apostle Paul had good reason for suggesting that men facing an apocolypse not be wed and likewise that women not become pregnant—this counsel was not at all timeless or abstract and it really is one of the roman church’s silliest Order’s to make apology for. Wasn’t it the same Apostle who called forbidding marriage a, ‘doctrine of demons.’ Hardly a class of teaching that ought only be obtained by the clergy!
4. Jeff Meyers: Good points, Sean. Remember, too, that the 1 Tim 3 passage (“husband of one wife”) is about the qualifications for “bishop” (episkopos).
5. Jeff Meyers: Craig, right on. Enforced celibacy for pastors is demonic, as Paul says.
6. Jeff Meyers: Kevin, get real. According to Rome, everyone that wants to be a pastor/priest must take a vow of celibacy. That is one big ecclesiastical gun at the head of every young man who desires to serve the church as a pastor. Also, “the Church” has not deemed it best for her ministers to be singe. Nope. ROME has arrogated to herself the make-believe position of sole authority over the entire church of Jesus Christ, East and West. Rome has no authority to make such a decree.
7. Jeff Meyers: BTW, you apologists for Roman tyranny, don’t bother to put links to RC web sites here in my FB comments. My FB page is not the place for you to seduce people to follow you to Rome. I’ll delete them.
8. Kevin Branson: Jeff, my comment was placed before your “warning”, or maybe they passed each other like ships in the night, or maybe I didn’t refresh soon enough to be “warned”. My point, without the link, is that celibacy is not required of all Catholic priests. The link would have explained the exceptions, but nevermind. Too much information can be bad. My other point which was deleted is that if one truly believes the Catholic Church is demonic, then that should be plainly stated, rather than merely offering relatively polite criticisms of the errors of the Catholic Church, and/or the Pope.
9. Jeffrey Steel: I am honestly trying to figure out why you even care about this Jeff… I think if you’re going to engage with the discipline of priestly celibacy as the norm, dispensations are given to some married men by the way, you need to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on the theology of the body.
10. Jeff Meyers: Kevin I didn’t say the Catholic church was demonic. I only repeated Paul’s statement that for the church to forbid marriage is a demonic doctrine.
11. Jeff Meyers: Jeff: it’s the norm and ideal that is the problem. That dispensations are given to some men is lame. That doesn’t exonerate Rome from gross error in demanding celibacy of pastors and bishops. The prohibition is against the Scriptures’ explicit instructions and warnings. No “theology of body” can ever compensate for that.
12. Jeffrey Steel: Jeff, I understand your concerns but how much of your (and most of us in the West) view of sexuality been shaped by the Western culture? The Church doesn’t hold a gun to men’s head to be a priest; that is a gift given and men offer themselves to the vocation of celibate chastity. Pope Paul VI admitted exceptions but East and West are very similar here. In the East, for instance, only celibate men can be bishops. If a man has the sacrament of marriage prior to receiving the sacrament of ordination he maintains both until his wife dies which then he remains celibate and chaste for the remainder of his life. The Latin rite Church is the same with regards to exceptions. It’s not lame, it’s the charity of the Church recognising the prior valid ministry of men from outside her walls and discerning a call to vocational ministry and marriage. Celibacy is freely chosen.Celibacy is a charism. It is the total gift of self in and with Christ to his Bride and it expresses that relationship of the priest’s service to the Church and to Jesus. Theology of the Body does compensate lame shots at a theology of the chrism of priestly celibacy.
13. Tim Gallant: Celibacy is indeed a charism. And one which very few have, which is why the so-called celibate priesthood is one very long train wreck.
14. Kevin Branson: Not sure exactly what Tim Gallant is specifically referring to as regards the “very long train wreck” that is the celibate priesthood. Probably more than just the Catholic child sex abuse problem, but that is probably part of what he is referring to. In observance of the “rule” for Catholics who post in this thread, I have to be careful not to post a link here, so you will have to dig up the answer to this question for yourselves: What is the ranking of the relative incidence of sexual crimes against children amongst these four groups: a) Catholic priests, b) protestant ministers, c) school teachers, and d) family members? Hint: you are more likely to rank these in the correct order if you successfully ignore the media’s reporting regarding Group A). And yes, sexual abuse is very bad, no matter who commits the sin.
15. Tim Gallant: The one long train wreck is not simply the sexual abuse of children by clergy, which is simply part of the pattern, or should I say the tip of the iceberg. Those who want to know can dig deeply into the inconvenient pregnancies caused throughout history by monks and priests, to say nothing of those who remained technically celibate but who were anything but on any other level. What is sown is reaped. The Roman church has on the one hand exalted a particular sort of life as spiritual unlike “secular” life, and on the other tied it to celibacy. The result is the necessary conclusion that truly spiritual life requires celibacy, and that leads people who have no charism into an abyss.
Yes, it is indeed one long train wreck, and it is a train wreck that is built into the system.
16. C Frank Bernard: As much as I like Luther, I don’t think I like “[…]and the pope is responsible for all the sins that are committed against this ordinance[…]” Where’s this in the bible? I think I’d stick to demonic (antithesis) references for lies/false doctrine, that rulers will undergo stricter judgment, etc. As Luther realized, so do we (adults, assuredly those 20 and over) have a responsibility to realize that anyone who tries to bind the conscience of those called to a 1Tim3 or Titus1 office by prohibiting the subsequent entrance to the blessed covenant of marriage is plainly biblically wrong and should be counseled by the best elders (each most likely having a godly wife and godly children). We no longer have the high office of apostles (2nd only to Jesus) but even when we did, there were multiple apostles who could rebuke one another (e.g., to Peter’s face and god-breathed into scripture for all to take heed).
17. Jeff Meyers: Charles, Any pope at any given time is responsible for the Roman church’s well-being as the chief pastor of that flock. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes on judgment day. They are indeed responsible, just as Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they would answer for all the sins of their predecessors if they didn’t heed his warning (Mat. 23).
18. C Frank Bernard: That’s a good point, but skimming that chapter I wonder if the rulers alive in that generation were about to receive the very unique judgment in AD 70. The blood wrath of the saints was stored and poured on that particular gen of rulers.
19. Jeff Meyers: Charles, the AD 70 judgment was unique, but it was also an example. The connection between pastor and people is so strong that Paul can command Timothy: “Watch yourself and your doctrine closely; persevere in them: for in doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). The salvation of our people depends, in some sense, on our example and teaching as pastors. The pope has a very large church for which he is directly responsible.
20. Bryan R Cross: Before addressing Luther’s statement itself, we have to step back and consider the meta-level question of how to evaluate such a statement. If Luther’s statement were false, how would we know?
21. Jeff Meyers: If Rome’s law requiring celibacy for priests were false, how would we know?
22. Bryan R Cross: It would be contrary either to natural law or to the Church’s dogmas concerning morality.
23. Jeff Meyers: Rome’s law is contrary to both created nature and the Word of God’s explicit, clear teaching about marriage and ministry in the church. Church dogma can be wrong and is always answerable to the Scriptures. This is one of those unmistakably clear instances of Rome’s error.
24. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, celibacy itself is not contrary to created nature. Otherwise, anyone who did not marry would be acting contrary to nature. That would make Jesus a pervert. So the conditional requirement of celibacy is not a violation of natural law, because the priestly vocation is a supernatural calling, not a natural calling. Nor is the celibacy requirement contrary to any Church dogma (so it is irrelevant to this question whether the dogma is right or wrong). The Bible nowhere teaches that the presbyter must be married (or must have been married). The discipline in the NT time was not that marriage was a necessary condition for ordination, but that no one having more than one wife could be ordained. So the celibacy requirement does not contradict Scripture; it is fully compatible with Scripture.
25. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, what a tangled mess of an argument. I’ll let the readers of this tread decide if it’s sophistry or not. Of course, the Bible does not require marriage for a presbyter or bishop. I never said anything like that. What the Scriptures do indeed condemn is “forbidding people to marry,” and that is the real issue here. The Roman way is to forbid marriage in the priesthood (little dispensations to various groups here and there notwithstanding). That violates God’s Word with a vengeance. Adam had to learn that it was “not good to be alone.” Man and woman are made to marry. If there are those who chose NOT to marry for good reasons, they are free not to do so. But it is a special and dangerous calling, as Jesus makes clear. There are all sorts of possible licit reasons for remaining celibate, including the desire to serve Christ’s church as a pastor/bishop without distractions. A man is free to embrace celibacy if he wants. But he will be embracing something against his created nature. Not everyone can do so. Jesus chose to do so, but he only had three years of service. Not taking a wife was his wise choice. But the implications of the fact that he chose married apostles is pretty obvious, except to Roman churchmen blinded by their erroneous tradition.
26. C Frank Bernard: Bryan: celibacy requirement or option? Where’s the requirement?
27. Bryan R Cross: Charles, if your question is “Where in Scripture is the requirement of celibacy for the priesthood stated?” then we see that this disagreement (between Protestants and the Latin Rite discipline) is itself based on a deeper disagreement concerning whether or not any ecclesial discipline must be stated in Scripture.
28. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, in your note to Charles I see that you’re still not getting it. It’s not just that there’s no requirement for celibacy in Scripture. Rather, it’s that by explicit example (apostles, etc.) and direct command (1 Tim 3; 1 Cor. 9:5), marriage is commended to pastors and bishops. To decree clerical celibacy is in direct violation of explicit biblical teaching.
29. C Frank Bernard: So the requirement citation I’m inquiring about is first in the post-biblical Latin Rite? How exactly did we go from the apostolic requirement of having no more than 1 wife to having no more than 0?
30. Jeff Meyers: That’s exactly the way to put it, Charles. The Bible says that a presbyter/bishop “must be the husband of one wife.” The Roman church decrees that a presbyter/bishop is forbidden to have one wife. So how’s all that Aristotelean logic working for you?
31. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, Catholics agree that St. Paul condemns forbidding marriage. The context for that statement by St. Paul is proto-gnosticism, based on the notion that marriage is evil, and that bringing children into the world is evil, because matter is evil. But you are interpreting Paul’s statement to be without qualification, i.e. anyone, regardless of their vocation state, has the right to marry in that vocational state. Whereas the Catholic Church understands St. Paul’s statement with an implicit qualification: anyone, has the right to choose the vocation of marriage [which is good and holy], but that does not mean that St. Paul is saying that anyone in the priestly vocation has the right to marry, or that everyone has the right to both vocations simultaneously. So it is not enough to appeal to 1 Tim 4:3, because both sides interpret it differently. And it is not prima facie self-evident which interpretation is correct.
32. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, for the church to forbid pastors to marry is against explicit NT teaching (1 Tim. 3; 1 Cor. 9:5; etc.) and is violating Paul’s warning against “forbidding” people to marry. Proto-gnostic or not, the problem is when church authorities FORBID pastors from marrying. If individuals want to forgo marriage, that’s their choice. But to authoritatively decree that no one who is married may be a pastor is in DIRECT violation of Pauline teaching. Paul says that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). Rome says that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop This is demonic.
33. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, I’m aware that many of the Apostles were married. But again, the question is whether their being married entails that all subsequent bishops and priests have a right to be ordained *and* be married. I don’t see how it does. The fact that some of the Apostles were married does not entail that the Church does not have the authority to require that those men who wish to be ordained as priests in the Church lay down their right to married, for the sake of Christ.
34. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, if the apostolic example is not normative, then where in the world is Rome getting the inspiration for her decree to DEMAND celibacy for pastors and bishops? Paul tells us: demons. Once again, the clear contradiction:
The Holy Spirit says through Paul that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).
Demons speak through Rome saying that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop.
35. Bryan R Cross Jeff, the 1 Tim 3 passage can be ready either way, as I pointed out. It can be read as a requirement that every priest be married to one wife (or have been married only to one wife), OR it can be read as forbidding the ordination of someone with two or more wives. The Church has always understood it in the latter sense, never in the former sense. So it seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that it means that every priest *must* be married. Either way, it does not teach that every man has a right to both vocations simultaneously.
Regarding 1 Cor 9:5, of course St. Paul had the right to take a wife. Catholics fully agree. That doesn’t show that the Church has no authority to require that those men who wish to be ordained as priests in the Church lay down their right to married. So I don’t see the Church’s celibacy discipline to be “in DIRECT violation” of any of St. Paul’s statements. Of course I can see how you read them that way, but I don’t think you see how a Catholic can see these verses as fully compatible with the Church’s discipline. Just pointing to verses doesn’t resolve the disagreement, because interpretation is involved.
36. C Frank Bernard: Regarding 1 Tim 3: “Either way, it does not teach that every man has a right to both vocations simultaneously.” But it does teach, either way and at a minimum, that ordained men could have both vocations simultaneously. But then somehow later the “Latin Rite” and/or “the Church” forbade marriage after ordination? Care to explain the birth of this celibate discontinuity?
37. Jeff Meyers Bryan, are you kidding me? The burden of proof is on Rome that says that every pastor/priest MUST be unmarried. Such a requirement flies in the face of the entire Bible, Old and NT, re: Levitical priests or Christian apostles and pastors.
Granted that 1 Tim. 3 forbids the ordination of anyone with more than one wife. It does. But what it does NOT do is FORBID a man who has one wife from being ordained. Rome does that. Not Paul. Titus 1:6 says that a presbyter “must be the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. . .” Children. Are you now going to present to me some sophistry that concludes that Paul’s instruction was not meant to lead us to believe that the men presented for ordination to presbyter were ordinarily married and had children?
38. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, if you are interpreting 1 Tim 3 to mean that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife”, then the instant his wife dies, he loses his ordination, and can’t be re-ordained until he remarries. But you don’t believe that. So St. Paul cannot mean there that every priest/bishop must be married. There are other, more charitable explanations besides “demons” for why Rome adopted the celibacy requirement. It is the same reason why the Orthodox require celibacy of their bishops; for the reasons St. Paul explains in 1 Cor 7. “One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.”
39. Jeff Meyers: No, Bryan. Quote 1 Cor. 7 all you want. I referred to it obliquely earlier. Paul was talking about making responsibly choices. Yes, it applies to the pastorate. I grant that. But not even Paul will do what the Pope has arrogantly done: authoritatively decree that all men who enter the pastorate be celibate. Paul carefully avoids using his authority as an apostle to demand celibacy.
Let me be clear here. For a man to choose celibacy as a pastor based on 1 Cor. 7 considerations is not demonic. For the church or those in authority to counsel men on the benefits of celibacy for ministers is NOT demonic. But when the pope and leaders of the Roman church make celibacy ecclesiasetical LAW and FORBID marriage to men entering the ministry or serving as pastors, well, that is demonic. Talk to Paul about the charity of that judgment, not me.
40. Bryan R Cross: Charles, you wrote, “But it does teach, either way and at a minimum, that ordained men could have both vocations simultaneously. ” I agree. But everything lies in the term ‘could have’. Does the ‘could have’ mean “have an intrinsic right to”, or does it mean “are compatible”? The Church sees it in the latter sense. That is why married Anglican priests, who become Catholic, can then be ordained Catholic priests and remain married. The compatibility of the two vocations does not entail that the Church may not require as a discipline that those men seeking ordination in the Latin Rite remain celibant.
41. C Frank Bernard: If the Latin Rite is merely the name assigned to the celibate ordained, no big deal in many ways. But I suspect the Latin Rite is either the only ordination option presented in some churches and/or has privileges not offered to the married ordained.
42. Bryan R Cross: The Latin Rite is one among 23 Rites within the Catholic Church. And so far as I know (though I don’t know very much about the other Rites), the Latin Rite is the only one requiring celibacy of priests. So if someone wanted to be married and discerned a vocation to be a Catholic priest, he could pursue ordination in the other Rites.
43. Garrett Craw: Bryan that seems rather convenient to me. So, its okay to be married if you’re in some far-flung ethnic group but not in the heart of the vast majority of the RCC? That makes no sense. BTW speaking of anecdotal train wrecks. Everyday I have to wade through the train wreck while wearing my Protestant dog collar because people think I’m some weird unmarried creepo leering at their children. That’s just the real-world out here in Los Angeles where the pedophile priest scandal blew up like a hydrogen bomb.
44. Justin Donathan: Bryan, how is it that Apostolic counsel and practice is not normative for the church and can be abrogated in the case of celibacy for priests, while so much of the rest of RC teaching and practice is based precisely on Apostolic precedent?
45. Bryan R Cross: Garrett, the solution to abuse in the Church is not to start a sect, but to stay within and serve and reform, with charity and patience, even if that means white martyrdom or red martyrdom. Two wrongs don’t make a right; that’s why schism from the Church is never justified. Trying to reform the Church from the outside is a dead-end. How much longer would it take before that became evident? Another 500 years? We’ve got to realize that the outside strategy was mistaken. Any Protestant who is tempted to complain about the state of certain Catholics must first consider the responsibility he bears for that state by not being in the Catholic Church. I’m not saying this as a criticism of you or other people like you; on the contrary, it is because of the great deal of respect I have for PCA/CREC people like yourself (and all those solid men that I graduated with at CTS) that I believe that when Protestants finally bring their gifts back into the Church, the effect in the Church will be powerful. I wasn’t ignorant of the abuse scandal when I returned; I came to believe that that’s no excuse for remaining in schism.
Justin, discipline and dogma are not the same. For example, it is not a sin to eat meat from animals killed by strangulation (Acts 15). That’s a discipline that was based on the time/context. But Apostolic dogma can never be revoked.
46. Garrett Craw: “Trying to reform the church from the outside.” Gotta love that one. I think you’re trying to get the conversation away from the Bible back into philosophy so you can talk about tradition. The Church has been very powerful in the last 500 years. Its Protestants that are taking the Gospel to Africa and China not the RCC. This actually reminds me of debating Marxists. Rather than admit that some things really don’t work and never have (like enforced clerical celibacy and Utopian proletariat states). You still haven’t answered the biblical arguments put forth by Jeff and others and that is problematic.
47. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, this is pure arrogance: “when Protestants finally bring their gifts back into the Church.” I don’t need to return. I was baptized into the Church 52 years ago and have never left it. What you conveniently overlook is that men tried to reform the church from the inside in the 16th century. Rome refused. She exiled them and the declared herself to be the true Church at the council of Trent. Before the 16th century there was no Roman Catholic church. There was just the Church. Now there is this arrogant sect, ruled from Rome, that arrogates to itself the title of “the Church.”
48. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, you write: “But Apostolic dogma can never be revoked.” This is exactly what Rome has done by mandating celibacy – revoked Apostolic dogma.
The Apostle Paul says that a pastor/bishop “must be the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).
Rome’s dogma says that no man with one wife may be a pastor/bishop.
And don’t give me some nuanced definition of “dogma” in an attempt to escape the issue.
49. Valerie Kyriosity: If I may add my two cents to the melee (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but I didn’t want to claim any more violent contribution), Jesus’ unmarried state has been mentioned a couple of times as a model of celibacy. Well, only of premarital celibacy. Jesus’ whole incarnation is about His marriage. All of creation is about His marriage. He is the ultimate example of marriage which all human marriages are to reflect. If a man — pastor or layman — would be like Jesus, let him lay down his life to seek and sanctify a bride. And note that it’s only one bride He came for…not a harem as sentimental or hypermystical folks on both sides of the Tiber would have it. He’s neither the husband of each nun who dons a wedding dress to take her vows in a perversion of a marriage ceremony nor of each girl of either sex who sways gently to the creepy, quasi-romantic music of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” tunes at the local evangellyfish church.
50. Bryan R Cross Jeff, regarding whether before the 16th century there was a Roman Catholic Church, here are Aquinas’ dying words, receiving Viaticum: “I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
51. Jeff Meyers: Bryan, that some, such as Thomas, obsequiously bowed to Rome, does not mean that all theologians and churches in Europe, let a lone the entire world, did so. You can find examples of theologians, bishops, and pastors from the 4th century on that sought to make Rome the center and authority for the entire church. Sure enough. You can also find just as many IN THE CHURCH who resisted Rome’s imperialistic attempts to centralize church authority, like Augustine.
52. Bryan R Cross: Jeff, my point wasn’t about bowing. My point was that if, as you put it, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church until Trent, then Aquinas’ words make no sense. Aquinas clearly believed there was such a thing.
Regarding Augustine’s alleged “resistance” to “Roman imperialistic attempts to centralize church authority,” here’s what he said to the Donatists:
“You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”
53. Jeff Meyers: Oh there was a particular Roman church alright, and lot’s of pastors and bishops believed that local church in Rome, Italy, had primacy. But others did not. I affirm there was an arrogant, power-hungry local Roman church in Italy before the 16th century. But there was no monolithic “Roman Catholic Church” before Trent.
Biblical Horizons 
Jeff,
On priestly celibacy, I recommend Christian Cochini’s book The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.
Professor Heid of the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology recently discussed early priestly celibacy here:
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff, this was a great exchange and I enjoyed reading it even though I am coming to it late.
For the Roman apologists, it seems you are in a real quandary here when it comes to the plain meaning of Scripture on this matter. You cannot skirt around the issue and clear apostolic teaching with sophistry and traditions. Is it not you who cry foul when you charge (wrongly) that Protestants ignore the plain meaning of John 6 when it comes to the Eucharist?
There is a good correlation I believe between the arrogation of power by the Roman church and the absolutism of secular kings. As goes the Church, so goes the world. The Medieval system was quite covenantal and it bears mentioning that Magna Carta was a medieval document from medieval thinking which stood in sharp contrast to any notion of the “divine right of kings” which only became fashionable after the renaissance and through the “enlightenment”. Such secular absolutism paralleled the absolutism Rome was preaching about the pope.
As for the video link of Bryan Cross, Jesus’ celibacy was no mere abstract example of pious living. Otherwise He would have chosen only celibate apostles and certainly at least the beloved Peter would have never been married. In actual fact, it would have made no sense for Jesus to marry because His Bride is the Church and He is not a bigamist.
Zoltan
I agree that the Catholic Church is wrong to require priestly celibacy, but I have trouble seeing how I Timothy 4 implies that the requirement of celibacy is demonic. Like Bryan pointed out, you are, rather blatantly, taking that passage out of context, using it as a proof text, and refusing to listen to your opponents exegesis of it. The first two you would not allow your opposition to do, and the third is explicitly condemned by the Bible. This is simply uncharitable. Stop treating the Catholics like they aren’t brothers, or if they aren’t brothers, stop treating them like the Pharisees treated the publicans and tax-collectors.
Matt
Matt: I never said they weren’t brothers. Stop treating them like the Pharisees treated the publicans and tax-collectors? That makes no sense. The proper analogy is Jesus’ distain for the extra-biblical legal requirements imposed by the Scribes and Pharisees.
That may be true. That probably is true. But my point is a little different. “This is an extrabiblical requirement that causes undue hardship for (at least some) of the priests” is a legitimate criticism, even if stated with harder language than is used there.
But my trouble is with the appeal to St. Paul’s comments about forbidding to marry. St. Paul isn’t talking about that sort of thing. The Catholics are binding heavy burdens, and hard to bear, which neither they (often) nor their fathers have kept. (To quote from two different passages.) But they aren’t being demonic. Or if they are, they aren’t in the way St. Paul is talking about.
Matt, I fail to see how Jeff was in any way doing what you assert. He was arguing against a false teaching which Paul calls demonic. His whole point is predicated on the “forbidding” aspect that Rome imposes on it’s clergy when it mandates that priests cannot marry. There is simply no consistent biblical argument to support such an imposition though as Jeff conceded, it may be undertaken voluntarily. Bryan has read into the passage that Paul was addressing a proto-gnosticism in 1 Tim 4. This may or may not be so for the Bible is not explicit on that point. The context of the passage would of course address Gnostic tendencies but there are other reasons one may forbid marriage which Paul would also be addressing.
When one looks at all Scripture on the matter, it is clear that clergy can and do marry (what Paul referred to as a “right” in 1 Cor 9:5). Indeed, one could argue that if anything 1 Tim 3 mandates not only marriage for clergy, but that how they rule their own households is to be used as a test for their fitness to church office. Somehow, the basis of the pastoral calling has been transformed in Rome to an abstract vow and book learning through tradition. Is there a connection here to a Pharisaical tendency? Seems like it.
Now when I read the exchange I did notice Bryan assert that we Protestants are not in the church at all. I also know that RC dogma asserts that we are not a church. When will RC’s stop treating us like mere schismatics when in fact the Reformers were kicked out. Like Jeff, I see RCs as brothers in need of reformation and my desire is for someone like Bryan to return to a biblical epistemology not one based on human traditions and thomistic sophistry.
Christophilous
I agree Bryan’s fundamental problem is that he doesn’t have a high enough ecclesiology. He can say “My statements below are critical of Doug’s article, but I should point out that they are not intended to be critical of Doug as a person; I consider him a brother in Christ, and my criticisms of his article should be interpreted in that light.” Pr. Wilson is, evidentially, a brother in Christ, but yet is not a member of the Church (or something like that, he has been baptized so a good Catholic would say he is a member of the Church but not in communion with the Church). Thus the Church is not the arc which brings us safe home, but is a arc which brings us safe home. Salvation is not incorporation into Christ, but may be incorporation into Christ.
Or perhaps rather, the Church is over much identified with the rulers of the Church, rather than with the assembly; thus denying the priesthood of all believers.
If those charges were made, I wouldn’t have any problem. And to the extent they are made, I don’t have any problem. (Though it is off topic.)
Likewise I don’t have trouble saying that the Catholic requirement is unbiblical etc. We can’t say marriage is a qualification for ministry, for then St. Paul would be disqualified, it also isn’t a disqualification.
But on this one issue, on the one issue of I Timothy, my original comment stands.
The comment about treating them like the Pharisees treated the tax collectors is as follows: We should treat the Catholics charitably as brothers, and on that particular point the treatment was not charitable. Or if they are not brothers (and I allowed for that position!) we should not treat them as the Pharisees treated the tax collectors and consider them beneath our charity. We should still be charitable to them.
There was one other thing I think is worth addressing regarding Roman apologetics about this issue. Invariably, some reference is made to things like RC priests who engage in pedophilia or fornication or homosexual behaviour and rightfully so because if such vows are good and right, then your priests should uphold them – Jesus commanded us to look to the fruit after all.
Now Kevin Branson countered that charge with a false comparison looking at RC’s, protestants, school teachers and family members. This is a false comparison for several reasons. The first is that only one of these groups is a single organization/body and that is the RC church. A more accurate comparison would be to look at how often these happen in the RC church vs all the protestant denominations individually per capital for we are not monolithic. The second is that only one of these groups claims to be the only true church of Christ led by an infallible pope so her fruit should be especially holy. The third is that only one of these groups demands a vow of celibacy of it’s priests/leaders and consequently wears that as a badge claiming that it makes them better servants of God.
I cannot fully elaborate on all these points but suffice it to say that as a Protestant, I will with fear and trembling point out that by God’s grace alone, such a scandal has never arisen in any church that I have attended nor in my “denomination” to my knowledge to date. If it did, I think it would be dealt with decisively. What do I have to do with Jimmy Baker or the lasciviousness of the pentecostal pastor down the road? Essentially nothing except that I lament when such scandals do occur because they provide fodder to the unbeliever against the purity of Christ’s Body. However, my church has no real authority to address that church.
The situation in the RC church is very different. There we have accounts of systematic abuse by certain priests and bishops indeed some of which occurred in some church schools over prolonged periods of time and by multiple leaders within the school such that you essentially have a culture of abuse in that institution. When allegations are made, far too often they are ignored or the priests/bishops propagating these acts are merely moved to another location. Who has the authority to discipline them? Well, given the polity and hierarchy of Rome, the final authority must rest with the pope. Have popes moved swiftly to address these issues, pay reparations to wronged parties and ensure that such is not tolerated in RC circles? The evidence is clearly negative on all counts so it is not merely the press who is to blame.
Remember Christ’s words that what is done in secret will become known (Matt 10:26). If the RC church judged herself, this issue would quickly be rectified and healing would occur but she has not. God hates a cover up so these matters come to the press and you RC’s should stop acting like practical protestants by claiming some corporate innocence from the actions in another parish and by drawing comparisons with protestant churches. If all was right in Rome and her teaching then such evil would not come to pass repeatedly and in diverse locations and at different times. Since this is being reported over and over and over again, I think the proper and humble response would be to do some soul searching and ask yourselves how such evil can thrive in the “one true Church”. As an aside, claiming that “stuff happens” is the most godless, irresponsible and unchristian argument that one could make and is disallowed in Scripture. Shooting the messenger is also wrong headed.
I am not sure if links are allowed or not but I found these stories interesting and applicable:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100309/pope_brother_100309/20100309?hub=TopStoriesV2
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588762,00.html
In Christ,
Zoltan
Zoltan,
I’m not sure I agree with your point about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
Like I said, I’m not Catholic, and I’m not going to become Catholic. I’m not arguing that Rome is right. But not every stick is good enough to beat Rome.
You say:
The problem with this claim is that though the Catholic Church is not the one mentioned in the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Church is doing better than the “One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church.” So if the argument applies to the Roman Church, it also applies to the Church, the Body of Christ.
The Church is one organization, one Body. And she has just as bad a problem with sin as Rome does. If the presence of sin proves the Roman Church is not God’s Bride, it also proves the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is not God’s Bride; and we should just become Jews.
And second, the devil is the accuser, Christ and the Spirit the defender. Just as I am real upset at people who side with secularists against Pr. Wilson, I’m bothered by people who side with secularists and the press against Rome. Shem and Japheth covered up the nakedness of their father, they didn’t expose it. We should do the same for our mother, even if the Roman Church is only a part of our Mother.
Matt
Matt, your posting from Mar 12 meanders a bit and I am not sure I understand you at all points so please forgive me if I need clarification. The last sentence of the first paragraph for example seems nonsensical. How can salvation NOT mean incorporation into Christ? Apart from Christ there is no salvation.
Now let me make it clear that I am in no way attacking Bryan as a person since I do not know him personally and I fail to see anything that I wrote to even imply that. Therefore in this we agree.
The Church is not exclusively identified with it’s leaders but in another sense she is. Consider the Scriptures here. There are numerous examples where the sin of a certain king or judge or priest are used to bring judgement on all Israel. Is this unjust? It may appear to be so if one understood that the sins of leaders are detached from the greater body but in fact, it is far more organic than that. God gives us the leadership we corporately deserve. If we are faithful we will have faithful leaders. If we are corporately corrupt then we are given corrupt leaders God uses as a mirror for us. Now when I write of corporate corruption, please realize that I am not meaning that every single individual is corrupt. Obadiah still served an unfaithful king Ahab in unfaithful Israel and yet he was a righteous man but the Scriptures are clear that he worked against his leaders edict by hiding prophets of the LORD from destruction.
Now in Rome’s polity, they deny the priesthood of all believers in a very fundamental way (though that is another topic). I know they would not officially argue that, but in practice it is denied and a perfect example of that was the practice to withhold wine from laity which they did for centuries. A healthy understanding of the priesthood of all believers would have made that unthinkable but the fact that it existed (and still does in some circles) proves the point. So if they do deny the priesthood of believers as biblically taught, and if they do claim their magisterium has an infallible charism when it comes to doctrine, then we should see good fruit born from that doctrine. If we do not, who is to blame, the leadership or the people who blindly follow their edicts? I believe the answer is both but the leadership bears the judgement even more.
I am not saying marriage is a necessary qualification for ministry. What I wrote was prefaced by “one could argue that IF”. I do not hold that position. What I was saying however, was that IF 1 Tim 3 mandates anything about the marital status of clergy, it would be the opposite of Rome’s teaching. Moreover, Rome’s position would make the entire passage moot which should be very disquieting. What I would argue from 1 Tim 3, is that being married and having children is the norm for pastors and how a man fares at this is a good acid test for his ministry qualification. If only a small percentage of clergy were permitted to be married under special circumstances, then this passage would not be presented as the usual test for men aspiring to the pastorate which it most certainly is.
As for your last paragraph, I think you have misunderstood me (and Jeff). I do not view RC’s as tax collectors. They are brothers in need of reformation. I view their teaching as Pharisaical at many points. The Pharisees were undoubtedly in the covenant community but Jesus judged them harshly and publicly for their errors. Bryan and other Roman apologists have a presence in cyberspace teaching that Rome is the only true church and as Jeff said, they seduce people to join Rome. That is Bryan’s motivation at his website. Many of the teachings of Rome are pernicious. How did Jesus deal with teachers of falsehood who refused correction after repeated rebukes? I believe that Jesus was ALWAYS being LOVE even when He rebuked the Pharisees for if He did not rebuke them, then they would be illegitimate children. I do not pretend that I model Christ perfectly in any sense so I appreciate your concern. However, I cannot accept that in all circumstances we are to treat Christians in a “loving” way that Jesus did not emulate.
Matt may I make a suggestion regarding this exchange for clarification (which would really help me). If you are referring to the Catholic Church of which we are all a part then use that term or simply the term “Church”. If you are referring to Rome then I think the term Roman Catholic is more appropriate. I always refer to them as RC’s because I am Catholic or more specifically Reformed Catholic or Protestant Catholic and they have no exclusive right to the term catholic and when they monopolize it, it is arrogant.
Now I found your third paragraph confusing because you did not distinguish between the Roman and the Catholic Churches.
Jesus wrote seven epistles to seven churches in Revelation 2,3. He rebuked certain churches and He lauded others. How can this be if we are all one visible organization? The eschatological Church is One Body to be sure, but it seems it is possible to rebuke the sins of one local/visible/historical church without besmirching the entire body otherwise the seven epistles and seven lampstand imagery given in Revelation would be a false distinction.
Undoubtedly we all have a problem with sin and we are all in need of grace. What I am addressing here is the RC tendency to minimize the sin that is publicly coming to light and since I am a card carrying Calvinist who firmly believes in God’s sovereignty over these issues, I think the public revelation of these sins is His will and if the world salivates over it, that will only increase His judgement of them. Did you read the article links I sent? Have wronged parties received reparations? Has Rome dealt with this problem in a transparent way? The answer is no and if she had then I would stand against accusing press that refused to show grace when every step was being taken by Rome to be above reproach in dealing with the issue. Lamentably, this is not the case.
Now this does affect how the world views the Church even we protestants so in that I am grieved. I am even more grieved when I fail to see RC apologists view the issue with more humility and confess that all is not right with Rome and her teachings if such a cancer exists in their church. Kevin’s posting seems to say that Rome is not as bad as people make her out to be. He belittles the gravity of these sins by arguing such and proves he simply does not get it.
So Matt, I think we need to adopt a more incarnational understanding of relationship here and imitate Christ. Your allusion to Noah is not applicable. I do not want to open another thread but in my view Noah uncovering himself in the privacy of his tent was not “sin” that needed to be covered. Something much more was going on there having to do with Ham seeking to usurp the authority of his father. Having said that, there is a place for love to cover a multitude of sin. However, that does not apply here for many reasons based on the public nature of the sins, the egregious nature of the sins and the demonstrable failure of leadership to deal with the sins when they came to light over and over.
Again, let us seek to imitate Christ. How did He deal with church leaders who tried to deny that sin existed where it did? We cannot have healing built on a lie that sin did not occur. Jesus rebuked the Church at Pergamum in Rev 2 saying that if they did not repent of false teaching He would come against them with the sword of His mouth. So I fail to see where Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as a “defender” in the abstract or absolute sense. As a father myself, I am the defender of my children but sometimes they need rebuke and perhaps even publicly though I would do so in love.
Blessings in Christ,
Zoltan
Zoltan,
A couple of things, first, it sounds in your first comment like you’re confusing my two comments. In the first I was laying out what I thought were problems with Roman Catholicism. I was trying to show that though I thought this argument against Rome I was objecting to wasn’t valid, but it wasn’t because I thought Rome was flawless or anything.
On that score, you asked “How can salvation NOT mean incorporation into Christ?” My point exactly. I was criticising Bryan for saying it wasn’t. But remember the meaning of “incorporation”. It means “in the Body”, that is, “in the Church”. To be incorporated into Christ is to be a member of the Church. Salvation should mean incorporation into Christ.
But Bryan doesn’t think it is. He said Pr. Wilson is not a member of the Church, but is a brother in Christ. (I quoted him from a recent article he published on Apostolic Succession.) That is to say, Bryan can say Pr. Wilson has not been incorporated into Christ, yet is a brother in Christ. Such language is only possible with a very low ecclesiology.
This trouble with incorporation into Christ not meaning incorporation into Christ also might be related to the Catholic identification of the Church with the hierarchy. (A point I must have made too quickly, as you objected to my point, saying “The Church is not exclusively identified with it’s leaders but in another sense she is…” and then in your next paragraph proceeded to add flesh to my comment “Now in Rome’s polity, they deny the priesthood of all believers in a very fundamental way…”.)
Regarding your second comment: If I quoted the Nicene Creed, I was talking about the whole Church, not the Roman Church. When I said “Church” I was talking about the whole Church, not the Roman Church. When I said “Catholic Church” (without “One Holy and Apostolic”) I was talking about the Roman Catholic Church.
If your point is “The Roman Church cannot be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since she is not more holy than they, and you know them by their fruits.” I think you probably have a valid point. But. The scandal that is their liturgy–the insipid language used in the official translation of the Novus Ordo, the insipid language in the NEB, the turning of the Mass into a self-centered circle, the irreverence toward the Sacraments, the offering of vile sacrifices no one would dream of offering their governor–is, in my opinion, much better to point to to make that point.
For a couple of reasons. First, it strikes at the heart of what it is to be Christian. Worship.
Second, it shows their assumed strength to be a weakness. “Scott Hahn says one of the great blessings of being Catholic is the liturgy, especially the reading of Scripture in it. Why didn’t Protestants have something like this? Well, probably because he’d systematically avoided any Lutheran or Anglican or high Presbyterian Church. Or a good Baptist Church, or… I don’t know where he’d gone before becoming Catholic, but at most Protestant Churches I’ve been to, we read way more Scripture than they do at a Catholic Church, in a translation that is respectful of the Scriptures, and the people take the reading of the Word of God seriously. Does he really think there is more liturgy and better liturgy at Immaculate Conception than at Divine Savior? There’s a reason Fr. Z has such a following at wdtprs.com.”
Third, Catholics are already defensive about the sexual scandals, and arguing from it just gets their defenses up, and identifies us with the world.
Forth, just as a husband needs his wife on his side when he gets fired, even if she thinks he made mistakes, so they need us on their side, even if they were in the worst position. We should rush to defend them before the world. Back when the slavery rackus hit the fan here in Moscow, a couple of Churches rushed to condemn Christ Church, a couple of Churches (mostly Charismatic) stood up for Christ Church–Dr. Atwood even apologized at disputatio that we hadn’t similarly defended one of them when they were hit by scandal. The ones that stood up for us helped unify the body of Christ, the ones that opposed us, to divide it.
And finally, there is no rebuke involved in internet writing. “You should do this differently.” is rebuke. “Pope Benedict” or “Cardinal Law should do this differently” is not rebuke. It’s siding with the world against brothers. But we are on the side of the Catholics.
Matt,
Just a quick point. ‘Member,’ in Catholic theology, is a technical term. It requires that persons have been baptized, profess the Catholic faith, and have not separated themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from her by legitimate authority for having committed grave faults.
“Brother in Christ” is not a technical term. The term is generally used for those whom we recognize to believe in Christ, and love Him, whether or not they are members. We could say that a Catechumen is a “brother in Christ”, but he is not yet a member, because he has not yet been baptized.
The notion that one cannot be incorporated into Christ without being incorporated into the Church, is true. But it does not follow that everyone who is in some way incorporated into Christ is fully incorporated into the Church. That is because in Catholic theology incorporation into Christ is not only a one-time event, but is a multi-staged process through which one is more deeply incorporated into Christ. This process involves, among other things, entering into full communion with Christ’s Church. Those persons who deny that Christ founded a visible catholic Church think faith or baptism just is (or is entirely sufficient for) full communion with Christ’s Church. But Catholic theology affirms that Christ founded a visible catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body. And therefore, in addition to believing in Christ, and being baptized, one enjoys further incorporation into Christ by being incorporated into the visible catholic Church that He founded.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Matt,
I am not implying that you think Rome flawless. We need not go to extremes. Now please elaborate on your first paragraph because what you are referring to in your “first comment” is not clear. You made several points in the comment I think you are referring to but the key issue you raised with Jeff and seem to maintain is that by criticizing Roman doctrine or practice we are necessarily treating them as tax collectors which I demonstrated not to be the case.
Now you are confusing things in my view which must be distinguished. I agree that normally, being united with Christ is to be a member of the historical Church. However, the Church and Christ are distinct. I think you are meaning to say that Salvation SHOULD mean incorporation into the CHURCH but I would caution that you not replace Church with Christ because apart from Christ, there is no salvation whereas it would be conceivable for an individual in North Korea for example to be saved in Christ but not be a member of an historical church for obvious reasons.
Here we are having a discussion about a specific topic namely enforced celibacy for clergy, and into that discussion came the issue of how RC priests transgress those vows in egregious ways. As far as I am concerned, this is a discussion among brethren not “before the world”. This is the Biblical Horizons blog and although unbelievers may look at this site, it is meant as a family discussion and I daresay maybe even Jim Jordan himself would edit out any inappropriate bashing done for bashings sake. I fail to see this in any way like me siding with “the world” against Rome. This is not a secular newspaper.
Roman apologists are very good at defending their doctrines in the abstract using reasoned arguments predicated on natural law presuppositions. They use “tradition” and Scripture when it suits but reject certain words of Early Church Fathers, aspects of Church history or Biblical passages when it does not suit. They ultimately hold to a tautology which is that they know they have infallible doctrine because the infallible pope told them them it was infallible and that papal infallibility was established by said infallible pope. This is a violation of every biblical standard of epistemology not the least of which is that the truth must be established by 2 or 3 witnesses and not a solitary office bearing witness of itself. Jesus also taught that we are to examine the fruit of doctrines in light of Scripture not just their cogency with human reason and that is exactly what I am engaging in here.
So Matt please understand that what I desire is for these Roman apologists to examine the teachings they hold to “Through New Eyes” of Scripture so that they turn from error and I am doing this in a Christian forum.
You would be better able to give the details of what specifically happened in Moscow but from what I know of the matter, the “dispute” was largely about misrepresentations of Doug Wilson’s teachings on slavery. I read some of what Nick Gier wrote and the man is vile. Even if I disagreed with Doug on this, I would never side with Nick publicly against Doug. In that we are agreed. However, if Doug while presiding over Christ Church, became aware of sexual misconduct being propagated by certain elders and he failed to act or if he sought to cover it up, then there would be reason for charges to be brought against him before presbytery. If it were found that such was occurring in many churches of the CREC then this would obviously be a sign that there are serious problems in the CREC and it would behoove us to examine ourselves with sack cloth and ashes on and to seek the LORD with prayer and fasting. If secular press attacked us because of this, that would in a sense be part of God’s judgement which we should accept as David accepted the rebukes of Shimei. The Scripture does not teach that we should draw comparisons with others as though we were not really that bad. It would especially be ridiculous for David to draw comparisons with unbelieving Pharaoh as Kevin Branson sought to compare the clergy of the RCC to school teachers or family members – ie groups that are not believers per se.
So Matt, I hope that it is clear that I have not sided with “the World” but rather, I am seeking to be on the side of Truth which is Christ. Essentially, your argument would leave no room to argue against any flawed Roman teaching on the internet it seems because it is paramount to maintain a veneer of unity.
Zoltan,
I’m having difficulty communicating evidentially.
I did not say it is Pharisaical to criticize Catholics. I said it is Pharisaical to assume that if they aren’t brothers they shouldn’t be treated charitably. It is. Nor did I accuse anyone of doing that. Notice the “if”.
My comment in short was “Be charitable to the Catholics. Treat them as brothers. Or if they aren’t brothers, don’t act like Pharisees and refuse to be charitable to them.”
There’s nothing objectionable in that, and I’m not saying anyone is acting Pharisaical.
And as far as it goes, I was absolutely correct. St. Paul means that, without qualification, forbidding anyone from marrying under any circumstance is demonic? And he means this so obviously we need not even listen to their understanding of the passage? Seriously? During a war, a man enlists to change his identity and go undercover as a mole in an enemy government. He also decides to get married just before leaving on the mission. His pastor says “You can get married, or you can take the mission. But not both.” The pastor is being demonic? Another man is addicted to pornography, and tends to be violent. His pastor says “No, I won’t let you get married.” The pastor is being demonic? Seriously? Maybe the pastor is mistaken, but demonic? Or maybe the verse does mean that any forbidding of marriage in any circumstance is demonic. Maybe in both those examples the pastor is being demonic. But surely such a conclusion isn’t obvious. And it is simply uncharitable to pound that verse as a proof text rather than listening.
Moreover, Catholics have very plausible explanations of that passage, which at the very least ought to be interacted with. And, St. Paul very clearly says the problem with forbidding marriage is that marriage is good and to be received with thanksgiving. But Catholics teach marriage is good and to be received with thanksgiving. Thus the verse is blatantly taken out of context.
______
No, my argument would not “leave no room to argue against any flawed Roman teaching on the internet.” I have done so here. But when I’ve done so here, you’ve told me “don’t go to extremes.” I’m trying to demonstrate that it’s ok to criticize Rome. That they aren’t above criticism. I’ve criticized them. I specifically said what I thought would be a good sort of criticism.
Say a girl is always getting teased at school about being overweight. Maybe it’s true, maybe not, that’s aside my point. If her mom starts nagging her about losing weight, her mom is just siding with all the catty girls at school. Even if the girls aren’t there at the time, and even if her mom is keeping it strictly in the family. The girl needs affirmed at home by her family, not torn down. Even if she really is overweight.
The same thing is going on with the sexual abuse scandals. The world is really upset at the Catholics, taking the sexual abuse scandals as more proof that the Catholic Church is a bastion of evil. We shouldn’t respond by joining their chorus, even in private. We should respond by publicly defending the Catholics “Hey, stop picking on my sister.” We should stand with them publicly and privately, and at the very least be sensitive.
________
My last comment did not reference the first comment I made on this thread. I said “A couple of things, first, it sounds in your first comment like you’re confusing my two comments. In the first…” That would mean, in the first of those two. Two comments of mine went up at the same time, and your response seemed to get them confused. One started “I agree Bryan’s fundamental problem is that he doesn’t have a high enough ecclesiology…” The other “I’m not sure I agree with your point about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church…” I said absolutely nothing about my first comment on this thread.
Bryan,
Like I said, you have a very low view of the Church, and a very low view of the Sacraments.
Matt
Hi Matt,
I get the sense we keep talking past each other. I shall put it as plainly as I can. In your first paragraph, I did understand the point you were making. What is confusing is that you now emphasize the word “IF” as though you were speaking theoretically but in the context of an internet exchange it comes across as accusatory. Jeff and I have both affirmed that RC’s are brethren. I have said that repeatedly. You then wrote of Christ as “Defender” and Satan as “Accuser”. Since I was NOT defending the RC record in this matter I am left to conclude that you view my actions as not Christ-like or even satanic. I pointed out that Christ did act this way toward those in the covenant community who taught error (namely the Pharisees) and pointed out further that these RC apologists have an internet presence teaching error to others.
Now I came to this exchange late. Jeff asserted that forbidding marriage is a demonic doctrine as Paul taught. I maintain that there is therefore a context in which one may use that term when describing certain false teachings on this issue. You counter this now with possible “exceptional” circumstances in which one may forbid marriage lawfully. I have no time to analyze these specifically but these examples are beside the point. I do not think Jeff was saying that in every circumstance, “forbidding” marriage is necessarily demonic but rather in this circumstance it is.
When I read the exchange above, I think it is uncharitable to characterize Jeff as “not listening” and merely “pounding a verse”. I think he did interact with the RC apologists but you are free to judge otherwise. However, I am not merely trying to defend him. What I am urging you to consider is that it is not necessarily wrong to characterize a false doctrine as demonic for the Bible does just that in many places. Rebuking someone in such a way does not mean they are outside the covenant community. Jesus rebuked Peter for trying to prevent Him from going to Jerusalem saying “get thee behind me Satan”. Peter probably felt pretty defeated by that but Jesus said it in love. It did not mean Peter was hell-bound, only that what he said was hell spawned.
As for your example about a girl being overweight, what matters in that context is the heart issue. If her mother merely sided with the school girls and nagged as you portray then that would hardly be edifying. However, if her daughter struggled with gluttony (a sin) and her mother urged her to repent of that, I think it is wise counsel and one would be wrong to conclude that her mother was necessarily speaking from wicked motives and merely siding with the bullies when in fact she was speaking truth to her daughter in love.
So Matt I think we will have to agree to disagree here. There is a wrong way to criticize the RC church and a right way. If you judge that Jeff and I have done so wrongly, so be it. If you are merely pointing out that we MAY do so wrongly (in theory) thanks for the cautionary note but I do not think I have done that. Nor will I accept that analyzing the fruit of certain Roman doctrines means necessarily that I view them as tax collectors or that I am being uncharitable or that I am siding with the world against other Christians for I see abundant examples of Christ and the apostles rebuking error harshly. There is a context for the “serrated edge”.
Grace and Peace in Christ,
Zoltan
Greetings all,
Here is a timely article printed in the National Post (Canadian Newspaper). It was written by a RC priest and has some good insights essentially in line with certain points I have been making:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/father-raymond-j-de-souza-virtue-and-vice-sin-and-redemption.aspx
Here are some choice quotes:
“Aside from the sins themselves, the principal failing of the scandals is that those who should have been seized with moral outrage reacted instead as bureaucratic managers seeking damage control.”
“We Catholics can bristle when sins in the Church are shouted from the rooftops. We complain of unfair treatment or unseemly delight. There is something to that. But the Church should be held to a higher standard than public schools, or juvenile prisons, or the mother who turns a blind eye when her creepy boyfriend molests her daughter. God forbid the Church should be considered just another place where a sexually exploitative culture holds sway.”
I believe I wrote something akin to the above comment when addressing the feeble defense of Kevin Branson.
Grace and Peace,
Zoltan
I am wondering if my comments are still not allowed on this blog…
Zoltan if you perceive my statement as regards the relative incidence of sexual abuse against children at the hands of Catholic priests as being a defense, “feeble” or otherwise, you are mistaken.
Blessings and Peace
KB
Kevin: You’ve never been banned from making comments. Your comments have always been allowed.
Hi Kevin,
When I look at the context in which your comment came and the fact that you thought it relevant to draw comparisons with other groups and then concluded that RC priests were not the worst of said groups, I can only view it as some sort of defense. Please elaborate as to your intentions. How was your comment relevant to what Tim wrote?
Now I want it to be perfectly clear that I in no way took you to be blindly defending RC child molesters. I believe that was clear in your post.
I would also like to make it clear that the proverbial sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. RC apologists all over the internet like to draw attention to the divisiveness that too often exists in evangelical circles and the fact that many Protestants misunderstand John 17. I believe this is fair criticism and I hope Protestants take heed and put an end to schismatic behaviour (although RCs are not immune to it either). You are drawing attention to rotten fruit and asking us to consider the tree that spawned it. Jesus taught the same. However, when the argument is reversed, I find that you (collectively) rarely take any heed. Doctrines bear fruit Kevin and if there is a “culture of abuse” existing in several wings of the RC church, around the world and at different times, then I urge you to consider what is spawning that. Most RC priests are not pedophiles or fornicators/adulterers. Most Protestants are not schismatics. However, we can both learn something here.
What I am asking RC brethren to consider is the incarnational way of assessing truth claims. We look to Scripture, we imitate Christ and the Apostles and we look to fruit. Natural law is about the weakest way I think one can assess truth but that is another matter.
Grace and Peace in Christ,
Zoltan
Jeff,
In fact my comments have not been allowed on this blog on previous occasions, and not only that, but also formerly approved comments have been removed from this blog, and even formerly appearing trackbacks linked to my own blog (when I have referred to BH) have been scrubbed from this blog, and those things don’t accidentally happen.
Take Jim Jordan’s post Rome, why Bother as an example, where the following comment by me, as a response to Jim Jordan, was never approved, and furthermore, several prior approved comments were also subsequently removed from BH after the fact while this comment was forever awaiting moderation.
Mr. Jordan did graciously answer me when I resorted to emailing him in order to have our discussion, at which time he made it clear he does not moderate the comments. The comment and updates below are quoted from my own blog where I referenced the discussion going on over here on Biblical Horizons at the time.
I really and truly don’t care anymore if you or somebody at BH wants to block me, honestly! But, when you say I have not been blocked in the past, I will say “wrong”. It happens quite alot at quite a few sites, and not to just me. Ask Bryan Cross. Ask Devin Rose. The Avenue blog, yes, it has happened there too. So you guys can block us if you wish too, it’s your platform. But just don’t say it doesn’t happen when it does.
Zoltan – As to the reason for my comment in the thread Jeff has reproduced here pertaining to the relative incidence of sexual abuse by Priests, my point is not to defend anything except the truth, and rather to encourage men to formulate judgments of their fellow men and the Catholic Church (if they must do so) based on that truth and not headlines.
Tim Gallant referring to the “train wreck” that is the celibate priesthood is in itself a misrepresentation of the entire priesthood and slanderous to hundreds of thousands of good, faithful priests, and those men are the vast, overwhelming majority. Calling the celibate priesthood a train wreck is not a true statement. It is a demonstration, in my own opinion, of perhaps a hatred of the Catholic Church, or at the very least a very uninformed mind as to the good done by the Catholic Church, for ages and ages, at the hands of a celibate priesthood.
You call it a defense. I call it refuting untruth. Maybe it’s both, but know this…I want the Catholic Church to be rid of sexually deviant priests more than you, I promise you that, and I would be willing to bet that Benedict XVI hates that wickedness more than any of us.
But I am sick of men who truly love Christ coming across to the world as though they hate his Body by their ill informed and/or uncharitable public calls for the Pope or the Catholic Church or the Catholic faithful to repent or reform or rewind or just go the hell away.
Has the Catholic Church failed now and in the past. Well, yeah! Alot of us finally realized the way to work for her loveliness is to work from the inside, instead of attacking her from the outside in unison with all of the unbelievers. They really don’t need your help doing that guys.
The Catholic Church does not attack you men, but you men attack the Catholic Church, endlessly, and it is scandalous to the world. Uninformed and unwarranted and untrue broad characterizations such as Tim Gallant’s serve no good purpose for those on the side of Christ.
I know all this is well intentioned, but it is wrong.
There, I said it. And furthermore, I’m done saying it. So break out the big guns now if you want and have fun. Keep em aimed at the Catholic Church: she’s an easy target, but she’ll outlast your ammo. Or aim them at me.
Blessings and Peace
KB
Kevin,
I’ve never deleted your comments without giving you a stated reason. Part of the problem is comment posts like the one you just left. This is not your blog. You don’t get to redirect this current discussion back to a previous one because of some imagined injustice we perpetrated against you in a previous thread. I’ll give it a day or so and then I’m going to delete everything in your comment that does not pertain the present thread.
Kevin, you are now engaging in a good measure of obfuscation. You wrote that your statement was not a defense and now you admit that you were defending “truth” (or at least your preferred version of it). My point is simply this – it was a defense and it just so happens that you view the RC church as standing on the side of “truth” here so let us not mince words.
The problem we are all faced with is that none of us are omniscient and therefore, none of us truly know the whole truth of this matter. As such much of what you passionately write about is unsubstantiated. You may “bet” all you want about what Benedict XVI loves or hates. I am not judging the man but what he has DONE in his offices – the fruit. For one who bears the title “holiness”, the standard is going to be higher.
I have already established with Matt that I view this as an exchange among brethren. We are having a “family” discussion so I reject your false claim that I am in any way siding with unbelievers. That is disingenuous and uncharitable and I can only take it as an excuse you are using to reject anything that I write. So be it. How many prophets were decried because they were not speaking for the good of Israel but instead sided with her enemies (cf Amos 7:16)? Never criticize Rome – got it!
Now you and other RC apologists make very public your critical views of us who are Reformed (your most recent post a case in point) so I would ask that if you take umbrage at criticism of brethren then chastise yourself and people in your camp who take to the internet blogs leveling false notions that we Calvinists are “irrational”. That is a claim that the world makes, ergo you side with the world against Christians. Is that valid argumentation? The RC church never “attacks” us? What about Benedict saying we were not even a church? Imagine being in our shoes and hold your present outrage.
Now personally, I have little problem with RC criticisms of the Reformed faith because I think there is a biblical and “rational” response to each when it comes to doctrine. We are all in the kitchen here and heat is to be expected.
Please allow me to put forth some analogies. Tim used the term “train wreck”. I do not seek to defend his choice of words per se (love ya Tim!) but I do not think he is far off. Consider the analogy of a train. All the wheels were working perfectly except a few. The one in charge of inspecting the wheels overlooked some glaring problems. The result was an entirely derailed train. Let us look at the analogy of the Body. About 98% of the cells are healthy but 2 % are cancerous. The result? A dead body.
What is at issue here Keith is the HOLINESS of God and nothing short of that and whether you admit it or not, all Christians are affected by the sins of Rome so I have a vested interest in this. Holiness means perfection and when you purport to juxtapose the apparent “good” of the RC church over against the sins (as though God were a mere bean counter weighing the good against the bad) you underscore a complete lack of insight into what is really going on here. Our good deeds do not compensate in the slightest for our sin. No one here has denied that the RC church has done “good” at certain levels. This is simply irrelevant.
Please let me elaborate further (and it gives me no pleasure to do so). I read in this article: (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100320/pope_letter_100320/20100320?hub=World) that there were children sexually abused by priests in Ireland alone numbering some 15000 dating from the 1930’s! The Irish government also found that there was “widespread child abuse and cover-ups among church leaders”. Moreover, Benedict XVI has “refused the resignation offers of three bishops who have been linked to abuse cover-ups in Dublin”. I then go on to read that the wronged parties are quite dissatisfied with the apology tendered by the Vatican which very carefully avoided any responsibility (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2706994) – an astonishing claim given your polity!
Now let us consider what the LORD requires of us “If anyone sues you and wants to take away your cloak, give to him your tunic also. If anyone compels you to go with him one mile, go with him two.” (Matt 5:40 – 41).
The stance taken here by Benedict XVI clearly falls far short of this standard. If a church commits such acts, it should bend over backwards to make amends and go beyond what is expected to make reparations as an example to the unbelieving world and not adopt a minimalist approach to mitigate against damages. The actions of your pope resemble to me more those of a political party who willingly allows junior bureaucrats and politicians to take the fall but will never allow such mud to stick to senior ministers or the supreme executive.
So Kevin I think you severely misjudge me (and others on this blog). We desire the purity of the church but we reject your idea of what church means. I would gladly work within a church for reform (as I truly believe ecclesia semper reformanda) however, if that church has adopted an epistemology that is completely foreign to Scripture, then how can she be purified? Moreover, if she refuses to hear those who seek (in love) to correct her, holding instead to a stubborn claim of authority like pharisees cleaving to their pedigree that they are sons of Abraham and therefore cannot err in doctrine, then I am afraid there is little hope for reform within. Jesus’ words in Rev 2 and 3 should ring in all our ears and when I look at the fruit of RC nations around the world (the contrast between North and South America a case in point), I am afraid I see little transformation of RC based societies (please tell those Brazilians to put some clothes on).
I will always remember a trip I took to Mexico. I visited a Mayan village and there the tour guide told us of how good the RC faith was because it allowed the Mayans to keep their traditional rituals. He condemned Protestants who forbade such practices as their churches created “divisions” in the community (heaven forbid Jesus actually came to bring a sword cf Matt 10:34). Well I shall hang the collective fruit of Mexico on the RC tree I suppose.
So let us put your epistemology to the test. I am well aware of the classic RC defense of why it is good to ask dead saints like Mary for intercession. Biblical criticism here is that there is no positive command or example of such. Never did Christ or the Apostles do this and we are commanded to imitate them. Analogously, Nadab and Abihu used “natural law” (ie: what seemed right in their eyes) to offer “strange fire” before the LORD. Please explain to me (using natural law) how they could have discerned ahead of time that what they offered to the LORD in their devotion was wrong except of course that God never commanded it as acceptable worship?
In Christian hope and love,
Zoltan