Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/07/2018 11:03 am  #11


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

What form of command is this? How is it a command at all?

That verse is not a command, and I did not say it was. I said, "what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is": the antecedent of "it" is clearly "[Roman Catholicism's requirement of] priestly celibacy." Roman Catholicism does not interpret that verse as a command of priestly celibacy, any more than it interprets "Do this in remembrance of me" as a prescription that the Mass should have the precise form it has in the Roman Rite.

 

2/09/2018 4:45 am  #12


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

seigneur wrote:

What form of command is this? How is it a command at all?

That verse is not a command, and I did not say it was. I said, "what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is": the antecedent of "it" is clearly "[Roman Catholicism's requirement of] priestly celibacy." Roman Catholicism does not interpret that verse as a command of priestly celibacy, any more than it interprets "Do this in remembrance of me" as a prescription that the Mass should have the precise form it has in the Roman Rite.

Is this supposed to explain why celibacy is compulsory to priests on Roman Catholicism? I guess the answer is no.

 

2/09/2018 8:46 am  #13


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

Is this supposed to explain why celibacy is compulsory to priests on Roman Catholicism? I guess the answer is no.

If by 'this' you mean my most recent post, then no. That was not an explanation but a reply to your misunderstanding of my previous explanation.

 

2/09/2018 11:13 am  #14


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

Greg wrote:

That was not an explanation but a reply to your misunderstanding of my previous explanation.

But your previous explanation was not an explanation. The question is why priestly celibacy is compulsory. If the emphasis in your explanation is not on "form of command", then it is on "some good is served by it". This does not answer the question.

You appeal to apostle Paul, "We have from St. Paul that it is good to remain unmarried, if one can." Yes, if one can. Can priests do that? Should they? In RCC they must. Why?

By now I know you won't answer.

 

2/09/2018 12:28 pm  #15


Re: What do you think about priestly celibacy?

seigneur wrote:

But your previous explanation was not an explanation. The question is why priestly celibacy is compulsory. If the emphasis in your explanation is not on "form of command", then it is on "some good is served by it". This does not answer the question.

You appeal to apostle Paul, "We have from St. Paul that it is good to remain unmarried, if one can." Yes, if one can. Can priests do that? Should they? In RCC they must. Why?

As I said in my first explanation, which you are still ignoring, "All one needs for a determination to be made by a proper authority is that some good is served by it." And some good is served by it, as we agree. Hence "it is far from incredible that a church should require its priests not to marry."

That's how authority works. Prior to any authority's saying so, it is not morally required that people drive on the right side of the road. But some good is served by having such a policy. Hence a legitimate authority can require that people drive on the right side of the road. Again, it is not required by scripture, say, that the Mass takes the precise form it does (for example, that this or that Missal must be used). But some good is served by the Mass having a particular form, including this one. Hence a legitimate authority can require that priests celebrate the Mass in a certain way.

Note that by "form of command," I patently meant "kind of command," and I was clearly referring the kind of command which Roman Catholicism's requirement of celibacy is: "... what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is. If it were thought to be a kind of moral command of completely general application (it is always bad for someone to be a priest and to be non-celibate), then the fact that there is no sentence in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere similar, to that effect would tell against its having a proper reason.." The point was clearly that Roman Catholicism's reason for requiring its priests to be celibate is not that it thinks scripture teaches it to be a moral requirement on priests or anyone else. Rather, as I went on to say, the kind of command is the determination by proper authority of how things are going to be done around here, even though they don't have to be. If that is the kind of the command being issued in requiring priests to be celibate, then the necessary scriptural basis is not that some verse say priests must be celibate, but rather that some verse say that some good be served by priestly celibacy.

Why is it compulsory? Because a legitimate authority has said that's how it'll be. Why has the legitimate authority said that's how it'll be? Because some good is served by it. That's the simple answer I have given throughout, spelled out in detail sufficient, I hope, that it can't be ignored.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum