Pope John Paul II...

[Leonard James]

?  ?  ?  ?

What exactly are you querying?

[jeremyp]

You see? I read that last part and now I know you really are an idiot.

It's called humour. I'm trying to avoid the pit of despair that your moronic posts are constantly in danger of dragging us into.

If they are already married before they enter the priesthood (or diaconte) then yes. Otherwise, once having received orders it is not possible to receive the sacrament of marriage without ceasing to be a priest first.

Why not? Can you cite the Biblical rule that says they can't?

[ad_orientem]

Oh! I didn't know atheists were sola scriptura.

[jeremyp]

Oh! I didn't know atheists were sola scriptura.

I was just pointing out that the rule "priests cannot get married" is a law that post dates Jesus and the Bible and that there is therefore no reason not to repeal it.

[ad_orientem]

I was just pointing out that the rule "priests cannot get married" is a law that post dates Jesus and the Bible and that there is therefore no reason not to repeal it.

On the contrary, the scriptures are not our only source but also tradition, which is apostolic in origin and ultimately from Christ.

[jeremyp]

On the contrary, the scriptures are not our only source but also tradition, which is apostolic in origin and ultimately from Christ.

"Because it has always been this way" is a very bad argument for not changing a terrible rule.

Tire's no evidence that Jesus or the apostles ever pronounced that priests should not be allowed to get married. In fact, let's be honest, they would be quite surprised that Christianity actually acquired a priesthood.

[ad_orientem]

"Because it has always been this way" is a very bad argument for not changing a terrible rule.

Tire's no evidence that Jesus or the apostles ever pronounced that priests should not be allowed to get married. In fact, let's be honest, they would be quite surprised that Christianity actually acquired a priesthood.

Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.

[Rhiannon]

Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.

How.

[jeremyp]

Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.

No he didn't. The priesthood did not arise for decades after his death. There was no priesthood at the time when Paul was active, for instance.

[ad_orientem]

How.

Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me". This the Apostles and their successors have done to this age. We know this because Christ instructed his Apostles who in turn instructed other trustworthy men such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp and so on a so forth. The Holy Spirit ensured they did not stray, just as our Lord promised.

[floo]

Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me". This the Apostles and their successors have done to this age. We know this because Christ instructed his Apostles who in turn instructed other trustworthy men such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp and so on a so forth. The Holy Spirit ensured they did not stray, just as our Lord promised.

That is FUNNY!

[jeremyp]

Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me".

That's not instituting a priesthood, it's instituting the Eucharist.

[ad_orientem]

That's not instituting a priesthood.

Yes it is.

[jeremyp]

Yes it is.

Explain how telling people to break bread in remembrance of Jesus is creating a priesthood.

[ad_orientem]

Explain how telling people to break bread in remembrance of Jesus is creating a priesthood.

Because by saying "Do this for a commemoration of me" he commisions his Apostles to continue the sacrifice, which is a priestly function Christ, of course, beng the high priest.

[jeremyp]

Because by saying "Do this for a commemoration of me" he commisions his Apostles to continue the sacrifice,

Yes but anybody can do that.

which is a priestly function

You mean the priests have made it their function. At the time Jesus was simply telling his friends to keep up and spread a particular ritual.

Christ, of course, beng the high priest.

Did he ever call himself that?

[ad_orientem]

Yes but anybody can do that.

No they cannot and neither have they ever been able to. Such is not a Eucharist unless it be served by a priest of the Church of God.

You mean the priests have made it their function. At the time Jesus was simply telling his friends to keep up and spread a particular ritual.

No. He was ordaining his Apostles in order to serve the Eucharist.

Did he ever call himself that?

Christ himself says that David was speaking of him in the Psalm "The Lord said to my Lord etc". David goes on to say of Christ "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech". The Apostle also tells us what this means in his epistle to the Hebrews.

[jeremyp]

No they cannot and neither have they ever been able to. Such is not a Eucharist unless it be served by a priest of the Church of God.

Jesus never said that. It's bullshit. You have just been taken in by your priests who want to make themselves indispensable to your religion.

No. He was ordaining his Apostles in order to serve the Eucharist.

Evidence please.

Christ himself says that David was speaking of him in the Psalm "The Lord said to my Lord etc". David goes on to say of Christ

David never said anything about Jesus.

He didn't write the Psalms, by the way but the Psalms say nothing about Jesus either.

"Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech". The Apostle also tells us what this means in his epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews was written many years after Jesus died. It reflects the couch structure of its day, not that of the earliest churches.

[ad_orientem]

I hav aleady givn you the evidence, both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!

[jeremyp]

I hav aleady givn you the evidence,

You quoted a bit from the Bible that doesn't support your case and you did some hand waving about tradition.

both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!

You are living in a fairy tale world. It's not even certain that David existed never mind wrote the psalms.

Next you'll be claiming the "Apostle" that wrote Hebrews was Paul. That is also pure fantasy.

[ad_orientem]

When one refers to "the Apostle" one refers to St. Paul, as was the custom of the Fathers. St. Paul did indeed write the said epistle, as has always been believed in the East.

[jeremyp]

When one refers to "the Apostle" one refers to St. Paul, as was the custom of the Fathers. St. Paul did indeed write the said epistle, as has always been believed in the East.

In that case the East believed wrongly. It's simply false.

[ad_orientem]

In that case the East believed wrongly. It's simply false.

The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.

[Shaker]

The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.

Indeed. Why take the risk of finding out a belief is false?

[ad_orientem]

Indeed. Why take the risk of finding out a belief is false?

The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.