The worlds gonna end

MOTime · Post by **MOTime** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:23 am

A friend of mine belives the world is gonna end on June 6/06 as the total numeric way of writing it is 06-6-06 triple 6 the sign of the beast from the Bible Who thinks this is gonna happen

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:25 am

I'll let you know 6-7-06 'k

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:14 am

mrsK wrote: If it does we won't have to worry to much.

How will we know we will all be cactus:-6 :-6

Besides which, no one knows exactly when Jesus was born and we also lost time when we changed from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar.

So who knows exactly when 06/06/06 really is???

:wah:

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:15 am

I guess if we all turn into cacti in the middle of October, THAT'S when we'll know!!!!

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:21 am

Damn! My DH isn't going to be home until after then so the world is going to end and I am not going to be able to....well - you know!!

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:22 am

LilacDragon wrote: Damn! My DH isn't going to be home until after then so the world is going to end and I am not going to be able to....well - you know!!

Get a rabbit!!

:wah:

Defiance · Post by **Defiance** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:41 am

Aw hope not - will be on holiday. Might put a bit of a downer on things. :-1

MOTime · Post by **MOTime** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:15 pm

thats all the expanded version of what i said

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:56 pm

MOTime wrote: A friend of mine belives the world is gonna end on June 6/06 as the total numeric way of writing it is 06-6-06 triple 6 the sign of the beast from the Bible Who thinks this is gonna happen
Uhh...not me. People can find, if they look haard enough, all sorts of things to panic about. Just like if they look hard enough they can find things to bitch about. If you look hard enough for anything, you will eventually find it. This is just something for people to worry about. See y'all on the 7th!

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri May 05, 2006 1:44 pm

On the news.............the way violence is escalating in the Middle East and this crazy world-wide weather.....and the general "materielism" of the industrailized world...and the scandals involving those priests.......I wonder if God is getting angry at us.

I don't know if "the end of days" will happen on exactly 6-6-06, but I do believe it's coming.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:17 pm

Thats my sister's 28th birthday! What a present!

mominiowa · Post by **mominiowa** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:45 pm

I say-------We should all have a really -really big party on the 5th and drink till we're silly,:yh_dance dance naked in the pub, and have frivolous sex :yh_battinwith hot men..(Ok guys--you can have it with ladies, not men if u choose:wah: )!!!

BRING IT ON!

My neighbor lady says, that with all the people that live together and are not married.... that is why we are in war and that the hurricanes hit...Its Gods way of cleaning house...currently she is serving time on the 4th floor of the hospital.....thats the mental ward..But I still LOVE her!:yh_love and sometimes she makes more sense then I'd like to believe!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun May 07, 2006 10:35 am

I assure you the world is not ending June 6, 2006. I dont even have my whole ACME chemistry set put together yet. Im shooting for Sept. now.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun May 07, 2006 10:59 am

The world could at least end before I have to do the dishes....................

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sun May 07, 2006 11:11 am

Nomad wrote: I assure you the world is not ending June 6, 2006. I dont even have my whole ACME chemistry set put together yet. Im shooting for Sept. now.

:wah:

Attached files ohgoody.wav (67.6 KB)

LOCO_01 · Post by **LOCO_01** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:29 pm

i heard that the world was going to end in the year 2012. who knows when its really going to end:-3

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:57 am

LOCO_01 wrote: i heard that the world was going to end in the year 2012.

Oh well that'll make an interesting opening or closing event for the London Olympics! :wah:

Just grab your chish & fips and it'll be like watching the floor show in the "Restaurant at the end of the Universe"!!!

:rolleyes:

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:23 am

MOTime wrote: A friend of mine belives the world is gonna end on June 6/06 as the total numeric way of writing it is 06-6-06 triple 6 the sign of the beast from the Bible Who thinks this is gonna happen

They've been saying this since....well...the beginning of time....any way, my son gets married on the 10th....'twould be a terrible waste of a weddding outfit

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:44 am

I have Ã‚Â£1,000,000 that says it won't. Any takers?

Ask him for all his money and see if he reall;y believes it then.

As to 06-06-06 do you really expect me to believe the hebrews used arabic numerals?

The funniest one is the idea that bar codes contain the number 666 and the world will end when everything has a bar code.

downag · Post by **downag** » Tue May 09, 2006 4:59 am

Everybody says, the world is going to end, the world is going to end!

How? In what manner?

Flood? Nuclear conflagration? Electric fizzle? A huge cosmic "POOF"? Tribbles?

6-6-6 in the Bible only denotes the "number" of the "Beast". A future dark figure of huge import. NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.(in Revelation).

If you would, the world (as we know it) is supposed to "change" drastically on the day that "God" (Yahveh) reveals himself from "heaven" (also in the Bible book of Revelation).

It's also in the Bible, that the "earth abides forever".

So where does this idea of the end of the world come from? Not the Bible!

d:-5

The Red One · Post by **The Red One** » Tue May 09, 2006 5:15 am

I've lost touch with reading my bible daily, but I do remember reading and hearing that the only one that knows when Christ comes back is God himself, Jesus doesn't even know, which is odd since The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the trinity, ONE PERSON. So wouldn't that mean that Christ DOES know when he's coming back? I used to question the trinity on how it could be all three were one person and I was asked, Are you a mother? A sister? A wife? I answered yes to all, the lady then said, "Well, YOU are a trinity, you are three people in one.

downag · Post by **downag** » Tue May 09, 2006 12:21 pm

The Trinity is a "teaching" of the "church". Not necessarily a clear item in the Bible. I think that way back at that "council" meeting, all those muckluck Bishops sat around stroking each other's egos and came up with that idea and then sat there smugly very satisfied with themselves.

There is another take on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that of "modalism. (I think I spelled it correctly). That God, who is "one being" performed the "office" (a work) of redeemer (the Son) and of course the "comforter" (Holy Spirit) which he gives to his children whom he calls, when they obey and believe and repent. The Bible says God has other spirits, also.

The Trinity is just people's ways of putting God into a bottle and saying, "look what we did"! Aren't we smart?!

A problem with modalism comes from the other's who wont/don't subscribe to it. They scream "cult" immediately.

Paul wrote, "for me to live is Christ, but to die is gain." Again, many times mention is made of being "in Christ". See(?!), Christ is the work our Father did to save us. Being in Christ is to be in the PROGRAM of salvation. Jesus said, "if you have seen me, you have seen the father". AND, "I and the Father are one". In the OT book of Isaiah, we have always believed that it was the words of our Father. Well, in that book he speaks through the prophet and says, I am the ONLY SAVIOUR. I am your redeemer, etc. Jesus was the manifestation of God in the flesh. God incarnate. If/when one gets to heaven (before the great day when God comes here) there are not three (3) beings there to greet you. Only one. Your Father, the creator of the universe. The ONLY ONE!

d:-5

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:46 am

Has anyone read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton? It doesn't deal with the

"end of the world" but he does a good job of pointing out how we are kept in a "state of fear" and how that keep our economy going. It's about global warming. . . very well researched too.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:34 am

MOTime wrote: Who thinks this is gonna happen

Lots of people, all down through history. One man once had all his parishers sell their land and possessions and sit in a field waiting for the end. When the date passed, he did the same thing all the rest did, assumed he had done his math wrong and that the actual date was a month later, no wait, a year later, no wait, ten years later....

It's just superstitious hysteria.

If you want something real to worry about, worry about overpopulation.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:13 am

MOTime wrote: A friend of mine belives the world is gonna end on June 6/06 as the total numeric way of writing it is 06-6-06 triple 6 the sign of the beast from the Bible Who thinks this is gonna happen

Hmmm

Considering that every centuries year of 06 looks the same as this ones(6-06-06 in 1906 etc.) I would have to disagree. But besides scaring me have to death in making me realize any given possibility such as this, I have to say that it would take something extremely massive to end existence on one single day, as even a nuclear holocaust would have survivors and would have to eventually die of radiation. Not to mention if an asteroid hit would take months for the ash to accumulate in the atmosphere leaving us for the cold of night.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:18 am

Rapunzel wrote: Oh well that'll make an interesting opening or closing event for the London Olympics! :wah:

Just grab your chish & fips and it'll be like watching the floor show in the "Restaurant at the end of the Universe"!!!

:rolleyes:

Actually come to think of it, I heard that the first ever olympics was based on the format of events held in England.

Anyone know about this?

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 12, 2006 1:58 am

K.Snyder wrote: Actually come to think of it, I heard that the first ever olympics was based on the format of events held in England.

Anyone know about this?

I don't know for sure, but I would guess it was based on the format of events held in Sparta in Ancient Greece. Same place the original 'Marathon' came from.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:40 am

along-for-the-ride wrote: On the news.............the way violence is escalating in the Middle East and this crazy world-wide weather.....and the general "materielism" of the industrailized world...and the scandals involving those priests.......I wonder if God is getting angry at us.

I don't know if "the end of days" will happen on exactly 6-6-06, but I do believe it's coming.

We've always had world violence..........and at least we no longer burn people at the stake because we don't agree with their religion, or call them witches because they have moles, or hang them at Tyburn for being thieves, etc.

The violence in the Middle East is but a copy of our own attitudes back in the Sixteenth Century.

We have had many ice ages since our planet was first formed. Between ice ages we have a warming period called an "interglacial". It is 10,000 years since our last ice age...........so we should be heading into the next one. It is only because we now have green house gases that we are delaying the inevitable. Mother Nature will let us push our boundaries so far and then she'll swipe back at us with some major natural phenomenon, a once in 5,000 year event, say, which will put us back on our natural path and show us how puny our efforts are in comparison to her overall plan.

Materialism is a product of an industrialised age. Even 100 or so years ago, most of us would have been servants and owned little of our own. After the war years people struggled against rationing and still owned very little. Materialism has probably only taken off since the 1960's when people could start to enjoy luxuries such as a car, a fridge or a TV. Considering the world has existed for 4.6 billion years, would God really punish us because more people, other than just a few landed 'gentry', have been able to afford a few luxuries in the last 50 years?

Priests have always been involved in scandals. Many religions refer to the Bible, yet translate its meaning in different ways. Some say a man can have many wives, some say you can't drink coke. I don't agree with either of those things. Years ago girls were forced to become nuns for simply looking at a boy, or smiling at him. I read an article a while ago about an old convent which was demolished and they found the carcases of hundreds of babies, born to the nuns, who were thrown down into the foundations of the abbey as soon as they were born. I think a lot of scandal arises because priests take an oath of celibacy. Man was not made to be celibate. God wants our species to procreate so we produce new generations and live on. Priests are only human too. If they could marry they wouldn't need to repress their sexual urges and they would have a better understanding of the pressures of family life than they have today.

The Bible said God was angry with us in antedeluvian days. He produced a 'great flood' and flooded the world. Afterwards he saw the devastation he had created and promised never to cause such obliteration ever again!

Why would the 'end of days' be coming?

If the world has existed for 4.6 billion years, only 2,000 of which have occured since the birth of Christ. Why could we not have another 4.6 billion to get it right in? In the last 2,000 years we have built better lives. In only the last 100 years we have improved our knowledge of medicines and technologies exponentially. Some things aren't great but living conditions, especially in the Western world, have improved by an incredible amount. Perhaps in another 100 years we can improve third world countries likewise.

Surely Revelations says we will endure 2,000 years of war, followed by 2,000 years of peace. That's not the end of the world. Surely that will be Utopia?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:40 am

Besides, I thought free will was free will. Meaning that not even the lord our God would take away our life because of the choices we make.

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:44 am

K.Snyder wrote: Besides, I thought free will was free will. Meaning that not even the lord our God would take away our life because of the choices we make.

This is where things can get extremely tricky as we enter into the concept of predestination and God's predetermined plan for each individual. Kind of blows the mind.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:32 pm

Samantha wrote: This is where things can get extremely tricky as we enter into the concept of predestination and God's predetermined plan for each individual. Kind of blows the mind.

But you see, it has to be one or the other. If the lord ended the world, then we would not have free will. If we end the world, we............well, we end the freaken world.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:36 pm

So if it ends on the 6th, does this mean I need to change my plans for the 8th??

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:39 pm

K.Snyder wrote: But you see, it has to be one or the other. If the lord ended the world, then we would not have free will. If we end the world, we............well, we end the freaken world.

BUT . . . if WE end the world, could we not say that it was predetermined by God that we do so?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:11 am

Samantha wrote: BUT . . . if WE end the world, could we not say that it was predetermined by God that we do so?

Again, this would contradict the whole theory of "free will". Free will means to live in freedom of Gods alternatives(I believe).

Meaning at the moment god intervenes is the moment we are relieved of our own consequences to our "man made" problems. Having said this one has to determine what consequences actually are. Are they a direct result of scientific action fueled by our own actions, or are they a direct judgement from gods perfect knowledge of what righteousness should truly be? without consequences there is no choices, and without our own choices there is no free will.

Im not saying that it couldnt very well be gods plan to have us end the world(assuming that god would want us to learn from something is the only morale explanation I can think of given this scenario), rather that if it does happen in this way, then there will be no such thing as free will.

Of course if my interpretation of free will is wrong, then this all would be wrong as well. (ALL my opinion obviously)

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Mon May 15, 2006 4:47 am

K.Snyder wrote: Again, this would contradict the whole theory of "free will". Free will means to live in freedom of Gods alternatives(I believe).

Meaning at the moment god intervenes is the moment we are relieved of our own consequences to our "man made" problems. Having said this one has to determine what consequences actually are. Are they a direct result of scientific action fueled by our own actions, or are they a direct judgement from gods perfect knowledge of what righteousness should truly be? without consequences there is no choices, and without our own choices there is no free will.

Im not saying that it couldnt very well be gods plan to have us end the world(assuming that god would want us to learn from something is the only morale explanation I can think of given this scenario), rather that if it does happen in this way, then there will be no such thing as free will.

Of course if my interpretation of free will is wrong, then this all would be wrong as well. (ALL my opinion obviously)

This is a great discussion!! So much is dependent on our perceptions of free will and determinism. I like to go back to God because to me, that's where it all began. I also like Einsteints little saying that "God did not play dice with the universe."

I had a hard time reconciling free will with predeterminism as each seemed to contradict the other. So I look to God's characeter. Personally, I accept Him as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. That being the case (for me anyway) I had to think that at the point when He decided to create the univers He had lots of options. . . . practically an infinate number of options. Using His omniscience, he looked over each scenario and selected the best of them. To select less than the best would go contrary to His nature.

Since He is outside of time, He could fast forward each creation scenario, know what each perons would do and then select the best from that. So, He gave us free will and he selected the creation scenario that He thought best. In this view, He did not MAKE us act a certain way, He just had foreknowledge of it. I hope this makes sense.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 5:36 am

Samantha wrote:

Since He is outside of time, He could fast forward each creation scenario, know what each perons would do and then select the best from that. So, He gave us free will and he selected the creation scenario that He thought best. In this view, He did not MAKE us act a certain way, He just had foreknowledge of it. I hope this makes sense.

Foreknowledge would have to also mean a predetermined judgement. Meaning we would all be judged before we have lived. How do you not judge something that you already know has happened? Its not like you can say after its done they can go back and change it.

If you know someone is going to shoot someone and kill them, how do you not judge them before it happens, and how would such a rightous persona allow such a horrible outcome? If this is irrelevant, then this would prove that there is an afterlife, right?

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:05 am

K.Snyder wrote: Foreknowledge would have to also mean a predetermined judgement. Meaning we would all be judged before we have lived. How do you not judge something that you already know has happened? Its not like you can say after its done they can go back and change it.

If you know someone is going to shoot someone and kill them, how do you not judge them before it happens, and how would such a rightous persona allow such a horrible outcome? If this is irrelevant, then this would prove that there is an afterlife, right?

Based on my understandings, there is a predetermined judgement on mankind by God. God said, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This is where I start bringing in what God said in the Bible. This does not hold up with everyone, but since I believe in absolute truth and God is that source of truth, this is where I draw my beliefs from. God said we are all conceived in sin, since the Fall of Man. This is where we may have to agree to disagree, I believe in the sin nature. It is reinforced everytime I see a two year old.

As for me passing judgements, I do it all the time. . .I say "so and so is an idiot." But I really have no room to judge anyone but myself, and ultimately God will judge, if you hold that God exists and He is the Creator.

You ask how such a righteous persona could allow such a horrible outcome. How do we explain the coexistence of evil with a loving and righteous God? Why did God allow the Holocost? It was allowed according to His permissive will, not His perfect will. This is diffucult to reconcile. . . I keep going back in my mind to the almost infinate number of choices He had for creation and I have to accept that as a righteous God, he put into play the best scenario. If this is the best, I sure would hate to see the others.

That leaves us with questions about the sin nature. . . .

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:28 am

All I know is, is that I like people, as long as they dont disrespect me, or disrespect people in sight of me we are cool.

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » Mon May 15, 2006 6:38 am

and THAT is a good way to be.

mountainwind · Post by **mountainwind** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:10 am

The new testament is one of the most successful conspiracy theories to grip the planet. I support the right of anyone to hold whatever belief they have even if I don't agree with them.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:11 am

Rapunzel wrote: 1. Priests have always been involved in scandals.

2. Many religions refer to the Bible, yet translate its meaning in different ways.

3. Some [Bibles] say a man can have many wives,

4. some [Bibles] say you can't drink coke.

5. Years ago girls were forced to become nuns for simply looking at a boy, or smiling at him.

6. I read an article a while ago about an old convent which was demolished and they found the carcases of hundreds of babies, born to the nuns, who were thrown down into the foundations of the abbey as soon as they were born.

7. I think a lot of scandal arises because priests take an oath of celibacy.

8. Man was not made to be celibate. God wants our species to procreate so we produce new generations and live on. Priests are only human too. If they could marry they wouldn't need to repress their sexual urges and they would have a better understanding of the pressures of family life than they have today.Rap, I gotta say, that was one of the most interesting and thought-provoking posts I have seen here recently. I'm not sure what your point was, because it was kinda sorta 'all over the place', but it was interesting nonetheless.

I take issue only with the paragraph I have reproduced above (I have added only the numbers). Here I think, in contrast to the rest of your post, you go seriously astray on several fronts, but please understand that what follows is intended as constructive criticism:

1. Always? Apart from the current spate of child-abuse allegations, when is the last time you can think of? I suppose you could name ANY profession or vocation and find members thereof who were at one time or another involved in some sort of scandal. In that respect, I would say that priests have far less than their share.

2. Well, yes, to some extent that used to be true, but most modern translations are the product of interdenominational scholarship, either Protestant-Catholic or Protestant-Catholic-Jewish. Any translation that bends the original meaning for a sectarian purpose should be avoided. The Jehovah's Witness Bible and the Calvinist 'Amplified Bible' are good examples of this.

3. Actually, ALL Bibles relate instances of polygamy. That is perhaps more a matter of culture than of religion.

4. I would like to see where the Bible says that Coca-Cola, or for that matter Pepsi, cannot be drunk. Can you provide a reference for that?

5 & 6. First of all, I do not doubt that, as you said, you read that somewhere. Don't believe everything you read, especially on this particular forum! Secondly, I think you are confusing two things, well, actually THREE things here. It's certainly true that there were, and still are, convent schools where girls are educated in a religious environment and also convents where unwed mothers-to-be are sheltered until they give birth and for a short time afterward. That is, indeed, a substantial part of what nuns do. But in neither case are the girls forced to become nuns; I should know, as I attended such a school myself. Indeed, it is not even possible to force a girl to become a nun, it is a contradiction in terms. When a girl believes that she might have a religious vocation, she is admitted, following a lengthy interview, as a novice on a trial basis for a short time - usually not more than a year. The problem is not getting out but staying in!

With regard to the 'wayward', that is, pregnant girls, they are allowed to deliver their babies in a sheltered environment and then leave. What happens to the babies depends on the individual case. They may be adopted out, put in an orphanage, or in certain cases the mother may keep the child. In any case, they were, and are, certainly not murdered! That sounds like Reformation-era propaganda material. Some people will believe anything.

7 & 8. The Roman Catholic Church has always had a married clergy, and has one today in the various Eastern rites. The celibate clergy, which exists only in the Western or 'Latin' rite is a relatively new development, and even there, some married men are admitted to the priesthood, though not many at the present time. But celibacy in Christianity has a long history going back to Jesus Christ Himself, Saint Paul, and many of the early Church leaders. Certainly if a man or woman decides to remain celibate God will give that person the grace to do so, and the human race will certainly not die out because a relatively small number of men and women choose to remain celibate.

downag · Post by **downag** » Wed May 17, 2006 4:37 am

Bronwen wrote: 7 & 8. The Roman Catholic Church has always had a married clergy, and has one today in the various Eastern rites. The celibate clergy, which exists only in the Western or 'Latin' rite is a relatively new development, and even there, some married men are admitted to the priesthood, though not many at the present time. But celibacy in Christianity has a long history going back to Jesus Christ Himself, Saint Paul, and many of the early Church leaders. Certainly if a man or woman decides to remain celibate God will give that person the grace to do so, and the human race will certainly not die out because a relatively small number of men and women choose to remain celibate.

Bron-

How do you deduce that it is a recent development?

Wikipedia has this to say on the topic>, when I searched "celibacy">

Among the early Church statements on the topic of sexual continence and celibacy are "Decreta" and "Cum in unum" of Pope Siricius (c. 385), which claimed that clerical sexual abstinence was an apostolic practice that must be followed by ministers of the church. Two Canons from the following councils also help us understand the Roman Catholic position regarding continence and celibacy of the early church's priests:

Council of Elvira (300-306)

(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Council of Carthage (390)

(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep... It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.

These canons are purely local to Latin-rite Roman Catholics, as the prohibitions are not even extended to the Eastern-Rite Catholics in communion with Rome.

It seems that this was held by Rome since the beginning.

Several views of Roman Catholic sites verify this information.

d:-5

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:05 am

downag wrote: How do you deduce that it is a recent development?...These canons are purely local to Latin-rite Roman Catholics, as the prohibitions are not even extended to the Eastern-Rite Catholics in communion with Rome.

It seems that this was held by Rome since the beginning.

Several views of Roman Catholic sites verify this information.Well, firstly, I didn't say 'recent' I said 'relatively new'. Secondly, AD 385 is not exactly 'from the beginning'.

I thought, though, that the dates were somewhat later, more like AD 1000-1100, so I will do some checking and report back. If I was wrong, you can be sure I will let you know! Is it possible that the restrictions you cited were later rescinded, and then still later re-imposed?

I would only add that the Latin rite ordains married deacons at the present time, so if celibacy was required earlier, as your source indicates, it goes to show that such restrictions can change with time. And as I also mentioned, there are even some married priests in the Latin rite, mainly former clergymen of other denominations who converted. In such cases, they are obviously not going to shoot the wife, nor throw her down the well with the mythical newborns.

That celibacy was encouraged from the time of Paul is obvious from his writings: 'He who marries does well but he who remains single, even as I, does better' (my paraphrase). At the present time, however, the Church has a serious shortage of priests, and ordaining married men, especially those currently serving as deacons, would be one way of alleviating the problem. Personally, I would like to see women ordained also, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Added later in the day:

Here is the entry on priestly celibacy from the Catholic website New Advent. Scroll about 1/3 of the way down to the section headlined 'History of Clerical Celibacy'. It's quite long but also quite interesting:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

That pretty much re-inforces what I had thought, that priestly celibacy as we know it today developed in the 11th century AD and that all doubts regarding the matter were dispelled by the Council of Trent, which began in 1545. You will notice that it mentions that all earlier citations, such as those you quoted, are now considered 'legendary'. That is not to say that celibacv was not practiced, or even required, in earlier times, but such requirements seem for the most part to have been 'spotty' at best, in terms of both time peroid and geograhy.