@@finnypaul7748 To a certain degree, yes. But that was mostly practised on the renaissance (so a comparably short time w.r.t. the whole lifetime of celibacy a a concept), and the benefit was _much_ smaller than just to inherit the father's position, which was common practice in feudalism (no pope's "nephew" ever followed his "uncle" as pope like a son followed his father as king)...
I think the explanation that " Celibacy serves as a means for priests to abstain from earthly pleasures to maintain a closer relationship with the scriptures and god." is cute, but far from the truth for many priests. If a priest were married the Church would have to have paid the priest a stipend sufficiently large to afford supporting a family. Given that the Catholic Church believes in large families they would have to pay priests larger stipends which would impact the wealth accumulation of the church. It would also have to provide accommodation for these families as they couldn't be housed in monasteries. I believe the reason was purely financial
In the middle ages? No. The church was not giving stipends to priests in the first place, and priests have been married quite regularly up until the high middle ages - and still are in the orthodox church, which is not exactly "poor" either. Also note that "priest" and "monk" are two different things. One could easily demand celibacy for monks only, since being a monk requires different things than being a priest assigned to a community.
Vatican librarian hears crying coming from the stacks where the oldest manuscripts are kept. He follows the sound, and finds an old priest leaning over an ancient scroll, and sobbing: "celebrate - the word was celebrate!".
Celibate priests can own and pass things on. I own something that once belonged to a very wealthy priest (he inherited his family's fortune and slowly gave it away to wider family, charities etc.).
i believe in two conspiracy. 1) the world hates God and much is to undermine the church. 2) is that money is the person with most money has control. a scapegoat can always be paid off if the crimes come to light
@@LlywellynOBrien And if they don't have a brother/nephew or whatever to pass it on to? They don't have direct descendants and don't plan on having them, you wouldn't be able to have an unbroken genetic line of priests, so to give them certain titles/wealth, knowing that their succession is uncertain would just be creating conflict for no purpose (in the context of pre-modern society). Someone giving away to charity or others in their life I would say is not really the same topic as celibacy, family and ultimately inheritance (it is however a noble thing to do of course).
Why does the Catholic Church impose celibacy for bishops and priests if Scripture says in 1 Ti. 3:2 that a bishop should have one wife? Celibacy is not a doctrine, but a discipline or rule imposed to priests and bishops of the Western Catholic Church. The Catholic Church may or may not change celibacy rule in the future. In the Eastern Catholic Church married men can be ordained as priests, but bishops are to be celibate. Scripture is not against celibacy, in Mat. 19:12 Jesus said: “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” While not forbidding men to marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9) Paul recommended them to be like him, that is, remaining unmarried, for the reason he wrote in 1 Cor. 7:32-33. In the Old Testament God told prophet Jeremiah not to marry (Jer. 16:1-2). What 1 Ti. 3:2 says could even indicate that some believers then were polygamists - if all married men, then had one wife, why did Paul impose that rule? In the past there were married priests, married bishops, and even married popes. Pope Hormisdas who reigned from 514 to 523 was married; his son became Pope Silverius who reigned from 536 to 537.
So celibacy serves as a means for priests to maintain a closer relationship with the scriptures while contradicting what the scripture says: "1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
Jesus sets a scriptural precedent for celibacy in Matt 19:12 and Paul articulated a scriptural precedent for celibacy in 1 Cor chapters 7-9. Celibacy has existed since the inception of the Church; Paul was celibate, some of the earliest Christian martyrs like Agatha, Lucy, and Anastasia were killed specially for their consecrated virginity, and so on. What changed was making it mandatory for clergy in the West (eastern Catholics have always continued to ordain married men to the priesthood).
Chastity involves living out fidelity to God's plan for sexuality, according to one's state in life. For example, a married person's chastity means being faithful to their spouse, while a single person's chastity means remaining abstinent. Chastity is a lifelong commitment for all Christians. Celibacy is a state of life in which a person chooses to remain unmarried and abstain from sexual activity.
No not same. Chastity: living with a heart ordered towards holding to sexual purity. Celibacy: living a life without engaging in sex or sexual relationships/no marriage, no children. (free bonus) Continence: living a life of sexual purity without a heart ordered to purity.... living a chaste life without a chaste heart.
its a pity that we are the only current of christianity thats impose celibacy on priets and yes is reasonable to not let church possesion being heriditary...it does not put in consideration other family members such as cousins or they sons....thats why they still can be heriditary because a bishop can make his nephew the bishop or his grandchild.......aaaaah i wish they remove this ban and let the catholic priest marry like everyone else......
Yeah, they should put an end to it. Like they did for holding church services in Latin. At some point you have to say to heck with tradition. Who cares about a nonsensical rule that's not in the bible and has outlived its usefulness.
This is false. Firstly m it is in the Bible, in the letters of Paul. Secondly, this is only among Latin rite Catholics, not among Maronite etc rite Catholics. Thirdly, the children of married priests never inherited church property.
I think priestly celibacy is beautiful and should he celebrated. Should it be mandatory, maybe not, but who am I to say. I would prefer celibate priests over married ones, simply because of the tasks they fulfil for our society. They are the cornerstone in the Eucharist and the basis of our worship. his hands should be clean of earthly lusts.
I think nominal celibacy served to give men who were never going to be particularly interested in women (whether gay or not, asexual, whatever) a place to go and a way to be useful to society. And it worked well for a while. But it causes obvious problems because they don’t want to accept that what’s obvious is also benevolent.
God created man and woman to combine and become one. Two halves to create one whole. Without this tenant humanity ceases to exist. It’s really that simple.
So that the prophecy in the bible be fulfilled as it a teaching of the satan also forbidding eating of flesh ,worship of idols and the mark(Rev.13:16).
in the bible celibacy is considered the norm, with marriage a dispensation, for people who cannot control their lust, but an honorable state none the less
the real reason which i was always taught it that it's a conclusion from the principle of Original Sin: allowing sex is a compromise, a necessity for human propagation, but priests who are totally holy should not be engaged in what is intrinsically and unholy act.
I often wondered if it was a cover for homosexuality, which was punishable by death at the time. It would provide a respectable escape from needing to maintain a relationship with a woman.
Understandable logic. But probably caused more harm than benefit (especially the reccuring pedophilia problem). It's really hard to restraint human instincts that long. Same mistake as the Jedi in a way.
The bible not only encourages sex but it says forbidding people to marry is a “doctrine of devils”. The sexual urge was put there by God for a reason. Holding it against your own will and power is going against nature.
@@EdwardBernardson i know i played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood too And i think its the real reason why the church adopted celibacy... But he was an expection....not all Priest are Power hungry...plus Rodrigo Borgia was also the head of the templar order... There a lot of good Priests out there and a lot that if celibacy wasnt a thing they wouldnt have been pedo bears.....or have illegimate sons....
Poorly made video. Spiritual reason does not explain orthodox priests, and orthodoxy is recognised as legitimate by the catholic Church. Also took 1 minute to actually get to your answer. Consider reuploading a refined version of your video, or let it stain your channel henceforth, if not already.
This explanation is faulty on several fronts. Firstly, the inheritence element is often stated but basically unevidenced. There are no sources that indicate this was a driving consideration. The reality is the percent of Latin clergy who were married fell over centuries, by the time it was barred there were so few that inheritence was hardly a concern. Secondly, the same claim faces pragmatic troubles in both the East and West. In the west it isn't clear how this inheritence problem would work legally. Priests are allowed to own and pass things down (to nephews, friends etc.), and did so, but they couldn't pass on things that weren't theirs. Parish churches etc. belong to the Diocese or order, not the people assigned to them. The East also makes it clear that this wasn't going to be much of an issue because Greek Catholics kept married clergy and this just didn't happen, even where very similar Roman law applied. It seems very strange to say that this change was brought in to stop something that wasn't happening and didn't happen in places without the rule.
Allah SWT Himself has never engaged in any sexual intercourse, as He is holy, and humans are created in His likeness. Therefore, following Him is the right path.
Oh no, it is almost as if religious people actually believe in their religion 😮. I assure you, I know many priests and have studied a lot of Church history and the theological reasons for things were very often in fact the real reason. Obviously pragmatism, politics (especially East vs West), language etc. came in, but most developments in Christian history (good, bad and indifferent) were very much motivated by ideas.
@@LlywellynOBrien Oh no, it is almost as if u didn't lie straight through your teeth or u don't know sht about ur own cult or its history. It's as if u almost said something of substance.
@@ngtony2969 Hey again mate, you seem a bit irate. I can't prove it to you easily but I assure you I know a fair bit about Christian history (that of my branch of the tree and others). I am no expert, although I am working on that.
That's the best explanation that makes sense: so the priests do not form clans to own church assets.
Because the popes had children out of wedlock and passed them off as nephews .that were the word nepotism comes from
@@finnypaul7748 To a certain degree, yes. But that was mostly practised on the renaissance (so a comparably short time w.r.t. the whole lifetime of celibacy a a concept), and the benefit was _much_ smaller than just to inherit the father's position, which was common practice in feudalism (no pope's "nephew" ever followed his "uncle" as pope like a son followed his father as king)...
I think the explanation that " Celibacy serves as a means for priests to abstain from earthly pleasures to maintain a closer relationship with the scriptures and god." is cute, but far from the truth for many priests. If a priest were married the Church would have to have paid the priest a stipend sufficiently large to afford supporting a family. Given that the Catholic Church believes in large families they would have to pay priests larger stipends which would impact the wealth accumulation of the church. It would also have to provide accommodation for these families as they couldn't be housed in monasteries. I believe the reason was purely financial
What the heck are you on about..? Are you Catholic?
In the middle ages? No. The church was not giving stipends to priests in the first place, and priests have been married quite regularly up until the high middle ages - and still are in the orthodox church, which is not exactly "poor" either.
Also note that "priest" and "monk" are two different things. One could easily demand celibacy for monks only, since being a monk requires different things than being a priest assigned to a community.
Vatican librarian hears crying coming from the stacks where the oldest manuscripts are kept. He follows the sound, and finds an old priest leaning over an ancient scroll, and sobbing: "celebrate - the word was celebrate!".
As a Catholic I appreciate you posting about us!
It is simple -- celibate men CANNOT INHERIT PROPERTY. The spiritual was most likely the last reason. MONEY always talks.
The church would have become a hereditary kingdom if not.
Celibate priests can own and pass things on. I own something that once belonged to a very wealthy priest (he inherited his family's fortune and slowly gave it away to wider family, charities etc.).
i believe in two conspiracy. 1) the world hates God and much is to undermine the church. 2) is that money is the person with most money has control. a scapegoat can always be paid off if the crimes come to light
@@LlywellynOBrien And if they don't have a brother/nephew or whatever to pass it on to? They don't have direct descendants and don't plan on having them, you wouldn't be able to have an unbroken genetic line of priests, so to give them certain titles/wealth, knowing that their succession is uncertain would just be creating conflict for no purpose (in the context of pre-modern society). Someone giving away to charity or others in their life I would say is not really the same topic as celibacy, family and ultimately inheritance (it is however a noble thing to do of course).
I wonder what the true percentage of celibate priests is across all of history
Why does the Catholic Church impose celibacy for bishops and priests if Scripture says in 1 Ti. 3:2 that a bishop should have one wife? Celibacy is not a doctrine, but a discipline or rule imposed to priests and bishops of the Western Catholic Church. The Catholic Church may or may not change celibacy rule in the future. In the Eastern Catholic Church married men can be ordained as priests, but bishops are to be celibate. Scripture is not against celibacy, in Mat. 19:12 Jesus said: “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” While not forbidding men to marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9) Paul recommended them to be like him, that is, remaining unmarried, for the reason he wrote in 1 Cor. 7:32-33. In the Old Testament God told prophet Jeremiah not to marry (Jer. 16:1-2). What 1 Ti. 3:2 says could even indicate that some believers then were polygamists - if all married men, then had one wife, why did Paul impose that rule? In the past there were married priests, married bishops, and even married popes. Pope Hormisdas who reigned from 514 to 523 was married; his son became Pope Silverius who reigned from 536 to 537.
celibacy is a personal choice, just as the eunuchs made "themselves" eunuchs.
to mandate it is a doctrine of demons, as with food restrictions. (paul)
So celibacy serves as a means for priests to maintain a closer relationship with the scriptures while contradicting what the scripture says: "1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
Jesus sets a scriptural precedent for celibacy in Matt 19:12 and Paul articulated a scriptural precedent for celibacy in 1 Cor chapters 7-9. Celibacy has existed since the inception of the Church; Paul was celibate, some of the earliest Christian martyrs like Agatha, Lucy, and Anastasia were killed specially for their consecrated virginity, and so on. What changed was making it mandatory for clergy in the West (eastern Catholics have always continued to ordain married men to the priesthood).
Excuse me, but I keep getting these two mixed up. Is chastity the same with celibacy?
Chastity involves living out fidelity to God's plan for sexuality, according to one's state in life. For example, a married person's chastity means being faithful to their spouse, while a single person's chastity means remaining abstinent. Chastity is a lifelong commitment for all Christians.
Celibacy is a state of life in which a person chooses to remain unmarried and abstain from sexual activity.
No not same. Chastity: living with a heart ordered towards holding to sexual purity. Celibacy: living a life without engaging in sex or sexual relationships/no marriage, no children. (free bonus) Continence: living a life of sexual purity without a heart ordered to purity.... living a chaste life without a chaste heart.
its a pity that we are the only current of christianity thats impose celibacy on priets
and yes is reasonable to not let church possesion being heriditary...it does not put in consideration other family members such as cousins or they sons....thats why they still can be heriditary because a bishop can make his nephew the bishop or his grandchild.......aaaaah i wish they remove this ban and let the catholic priest marry like everyone else......
Yeah, they should put an end to it. Like they did for holding church services in Latin. At some point you have to say to heck with tradition. Who cares about a nonsensical rule that's not in the bible and has outlived its usefulness.
it was part of Christianity centuries before Christians became wealthy w/ land etc.
This is false. Firstly m it is in the Bible, in the letters of Paul. Secondly, this is only among Latin rite Catholics, not among Maronite etc rite Catholics. Thirdly, the children of married priests never inherited church property.
Is this rooted in Gnosticism?
Good video, as always.
I believe the overwhelming reason is the financial part related to inheritance. Why not just ban priests from having children but allow them to marry?
They knew that marriage will destroy men.
As opposed to men already destroying each other?
I think priestly celibacy is beautiful and should he celebrated.
Should it be mandatory, maybe not, but who am I to say.
I would prefer celibate priests over married ones, simply because of the tasks they fulfil for our society. They are the cornerstone in the Eucharist and the basis of our worship. his hands should be clean of earthly lusts.
I think nominal celibacy served to give men who were never going to be particularly interested in women (whether gay or not, asexual, whatever) a place to go and a way to be useful to society. And it worked well for a while. But it causes obvious problems because they don’t want to accept that what’s obvious is also benevolent.
God created man and woman to combine and become one. Two halves to create one whole. Without this tenant humanity ceases to exist. It’s really that simple.
So that the prophecy in the bible be fulfilled as it a teaching of the satan also forbidding eating of flesh ,worship of idols and the mark(Rev.13:16).
in the bible celibacy is considered the norm, with marriage a dispensation, for people who cannot control their lust, but an honorable state none the less
the real reason which i was always taught it that it's a conclusion from the principle of Original Sin: allowing sex is a compromise, a necessity for human propagation, but priests who are totally holy should not be engaged in what is intrinsically and unholy act.
I often wondered if it was a cover for homosexuality, which was punishable by death at the time. It would provide a respectable escape from needing to maintain a relationship with a woman.
So good quick and informative good shit you are not after the money well even if u are u deserve it
Understandable logic. But probably caused more harm than benefit (especially the reccuring pedophilia problem).
It's really hard to restraint human instincts that long. Same mistake as the Jedi in a way.
oh thats a thing too
and not to mention the illegimate sons...
The bible not only encourages sex but it says forbidding people to marry is a “doctrine of devils”. The sexual urge was put there by God for a reason. Holding it against your own will and power is going against nature.
@@davidelabarilemobile7094I was just reading about Cesar Borgia. His father was a pope.
@@EdwardBernardson i know i played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood too
And i think its the real reason why the church adopted celibacy...
But he was an expection....not all Priest are Power hungry...plus Rodrigo Borgia was also the head of the templar order...
There a lot of good Priests out there and a lot that if celibacy wasnt a thing they wouldnt have been pedo bears.....or have illegimate sons....
The Bible encourages sex and marriage. To deprive oneself of those things makes you more likely to sin.
well there is more reasons but in short...... yeas
Poorly made video. Spiritual reason does not explain orthodox priests, and orthodoxy is recognised as legitimate by the catholic Church. Also took 1 minute to actually get to your answer. Consider reuploading a refined version of your video, or let it stain your channel henceforth, if not already.
I think it’s very well made. Short, simple and clearly informative.
It's always about the Benjamins!
Because they are hẻretics 😂
The property is the common reason for everything
oh okay, they don't want a holy-roman emperor I guess
This explanation is faulty on several fronts.
Firstly, the inheritence element is often stated but basically unevidenced. There are no sources that indicate this was a driving consideration. The reality is the percent of Latin clergy who were married fell over centuries, by the time it was barred there were so few that inheritence was hardly a concern.
Secondly, the same claim faces pragmatic troubles in both the East and West. In the west it isn't clear how this inheritence problem would work legally. Priests are allowed to own and pass things down (to nephews, friends etc.), and did so, but they couldn't pass on things that weren't theirs. Parish churches etc. belong to the Diocese or order, not the people assigned to them. The East also makes it clear that this wasn't going to be much of an issue because Greek Catholics kept married clergy and this just didn't happen, even where very similar Roman law applied.
It seems very strange to say that this change was brought in to stop something that wasn't happening and didn't happen in places without the rule.
Allah SWT Himself has never engaged in any sexual intercourse, as He is holy, and humans are created in His likeness. Therefore, following Him is the right path.
yet another thing the catholic church got wrong
‘Cuz altar boys
😄
The reason is spiritual? What utter BS is this? Obviously it's the second reason u mentioned, how stupid do you think people are?
Now now, no need to get agitated
Oh no, it is almost as if religious people actually believe in their religion 😮. I assure you, I know many priests and have studied a lot of Church history and the theological reasons for things were very often in fact the real reason.
Obviously pragmatism, politics (especially East vs West), language etc. came in, but most developments in Christian history (good, bad and indifferent) were very much motivated by ideas.
@@LlywellynOBrien Oh no, it is almost as if u didn't lie straight through your teeth or u don't know sht about ur own cult or its history. It's as if u almost said something of substance.
@@LlywellynOBrien It's almost as if ur didn't troll some garbage and lie to urself u made a good argument and then flee in a hit-and-run troll reply.
@@ngtony2969 Hey again mate, you seem a bit irate. I can't prove it to you easily but I assure you I know a fair bit about Christian history (that of my branch of the tree and others). I am no expert, although I am working on that.