MY FOURTH RESPONSE TO CASTROJ1 ON PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY, CLERICAL CELIBACY AND THE GLORY OF THE SAINTS

From: Jorge Castro <jorgecastro2@gmail.com>

To: Abe Arganiosa <splendor236@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 1:16:43 PM Subject: Re: About Questions regarding Mary...

Brother Arganiosa:

So here are the quotes on the issue of celibacy form Scriptures. I am sure that you know these but you insist in having the quotes so here they are:

Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons (1 Timothy) - taken from www.bible.org/netbible

3:1 This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work.” 3:2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. 3:5 But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God? 3:6 He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact. 3:7 And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.

Parallel passage can be found in Titus 1:6-9And of course, there are the passages from Paul and Christ that demonstrate celibacy is something of value to be aspired, etc. When all these verses are taken together; it is clear that:

· unmarried men can be church elders (priest, pastor, deacon, etc.)

· married men can be church elders

· married men that continue to live with their families (in particular their children) and also be elders - this is clear when it mentions about ruling over their house; how can you rule over your house and children if you are not even there.

Bro. Castro:

It only proves that the Catholic Church got it correctly while Evangelicalism failed to implement the Biblical Teaching.

The Bible shows that Jesus is celibate and among the Apostles only one was married the rest were Non Married and even the only married, Peter, left his family for the sake of the Kingdom. The Bible shows 99% of the Church leaders during the time of Jesus were celibate and later on it went higher because none of the Apostles and Bishops and Deacons and Evangelists named in the Bible were married. Thus, the great majority of the First Century leaders of the Church were Celibate but there were some who were married who were also accepted into the hierarchy.

The Catholic Church is implementing that. The great majority of our leaders are Celibate while there are also some who are married as in the case of the Eastern Catholics and the former Anglicans and Episcopalian clergies.

In Evangelicalism, it’s the other way around. Celibacy is reduced to almost zero while its married clergy has become the universal norm. The Biblical practice in favour of Celibacy over married clergy has been overturned by the Evangelicals. They have disregarded the examples of the Lord Jesus, St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

WE ARE STILL GLAD THAT WE HAVE FAVOURED THE CELIBACY FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM RATHER THAN IMPOSING MARRIAGE OVER IT.

This is what I meant by the requirements of elders. Celibacy is never mentioned as a mandatory requirement for being an elder in the Scriptures. This is very clear. This is what I meant by saying that mandatory celibacy is not supported by Scriptures.

The Evangelicals, on the other hand, junked the Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. It is an abandoned practiced in your churches and fellowships so that almost all of your leaders are enjoying the privilege of the ‘Flesh’ and the comfort of a ‘home’ and ‘family’. What did you renounce for Christ? Nothing. You didn’t abandon your family instead you created it. So, your modern day Apostles didn’t leave their boats behind, didn’t abandon everything behind as demanded ultimately by the Gospel.

You have to realize that abandonment of Celibacy is contrary to Scriptures.

The Scriptues never stated that. That is an opinion which is unfounded.

On our side we maintained celibacy of the Church leaders and we also allowed marriage for some.

Or to put in another way, the current practices (about celibacy) in most of the Roman Catholic Church are based on traditions of men and not on the very early Apostolic Tradition or the Scriptures. However, as you pointed out and I also mentioned; I believe that there are many advantages and practical considerations to why celibacy is good and I don't have a problem with any of those.

Regardless of your opinion or even that of St. Paul, the one that matters most is Jesus. JESUS, THE LORD, THE MESSIAH, THE HIGH PRIEST.

PRIESTS, PASTORS AND CLERICS MUST IMITATE JESUS AND FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLES. THIS IS THE NORM OF THE GOSPEL. ST. PAUL WHOM YOU HAVE QUOTED DID FOLLOW JESUS. THE REST OF THE APOSTLES FOLLOWED JESUS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOLLOWED THE CHOICE OF JESUS.

HOW COME YOUR CHURCHES FOLLOWED A MERE ADVICE NOT PRACTICED BY ANY APOSTLE OVER THE ONE THE LORD AND THE APOSTLES HAD CHOSEN. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

IF WE HAVE MADE IT MANDATORY WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? ARE YOU HARMED BY IT? DID WE MAKE AN EVIL OR IMMORAL LAW? WE ARE THE ONE LIVING IT NOT YOU SO WHAT’S THE FUSS? ANY PROBLEM WITH OUR CHOICE? IF WE HAVE PROBLEM WITH IT THEN WE WILL DEAL WITH OUR OWN PROBLEMS CONCERNING CELIBACY WHILE YOU SETTLE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS CONCERNING MARRIED PASTORS.

We rather commit mistakes on the side of Jesus and the Apostles rather than with a practice that we do not even know who practiced among the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles. Will you please give me a name of one Apostle or Bishop who got married? Evangelicals have preferred the lifestyle of unknown Christians over the Apostles.

Ours is Divine Tradition because Jesus practiced it and it is Apostolic because the Apostles preached and practiced it. Yours is adviced but Biblically not practiced by Jesus and the Apostles.

If there are leaders who were married then, they were the Judaizers and the former member of the Jewish clergy and the former Jewish Rabbi. Your practice is more in common with the rule of the Sanhedrin Rabbis rather than the Apostolic College of the Christians.

Similarly, I can also point that a pastor maybe more capable to give marriage counseling because he knows (by experience) of what he is talking about as opposed to just having studied the subject (theory). There are good practical aspects to both views/practices.

So, your pastors are much better than the Apostles in giving marriage counselling because the Apostles, with the exception of Peter, were not married. That’s very funny. The greatest Biblical Marriage Advices in the New Testament are delivered or written by St. Paul who practiced the Catholic celibacy.

The Apostles were celibate and they were the best teachers of the Faith.

The Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were celibate yet they proclaimed the faith with all its glory. They are the best of the best teachers of the faith through their writings.

Paul the Celibate is the greatest preacher and missionary of all time.

Surely these Saints were better than the non-celibate pastors in advising about Christian Marriage.

YOUR CLAIM DOESN’T HOLD WATER. That is a very superficial assertion which is unproven. That is why Divorce is legal among many Evangelicals if not all because their married clergy can’t advise them to remain together. Thus, even among your clergy there are a lot who have been married twice or more because of that.

Madonna and Child by Michelangelo

I will make one final comment on the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is regarding Mt 1:25. I did a quick search of the greek word that is translated "until" in that verse in a Strong Greek Concordance and found that there are about 150 instances of it in the New Testament alone. I imagine there will be many more in the Old Testament version of the Septuagint but I didn't check that much. I went thorugh a few of the quotes (randomly) to see the usage of the word and found that in some cases the word "until" is used to represent an undefined period of time (which agrees with your point of view) but I also found that in many of the instances it is used to clearly show a clear finite duration of something and a change occurring. The reality of the matter is that when one reads most of these; it is clear when it means an indefinite ammount of time. It is quite obvious. It is also clear, when it means a fixed amount of time that indicates a change. Hence, the only way to interpret Mt 1:25 is directly linked to our own preconceived notions or ideas about which cathegory it belongs to. The same can be said about the other verses about the "brothers" of Christ.

So, there are two interpretations of ‘Until’: One doesn’t state that something had happened afterward, and the other there is something that happened after.

Now, which one will you choose? By what authority will you settle the dispute since the Bible doesn’t say which of the two must be believed in the case of Jesus and Mary?

I SEE THAT THE EVANGELICALS FOLLOWED THE OPINION OF THE HERETIC HELVIDIUS WHILE THE CATHOLICS FOLLOWED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH: ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, JEROME, AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, AND THE REST.

That passage cannot erase the historical fact that your position is from a heretic. The position of Evangelicals is a heresy made new.

To me the real issue is believing in the Virgin birth of Christ.

For Catholics that is a greater issue. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is supportive of the Virgin Birth while the denial of it will endanger the Virgin Birth because if Mary had biological children then the origin of Jesus is questionable. If the others are children of Joseph who says that Jesus is not. Mere writings of the Evangelists are not enough to dispel that especially since they were not present when the events took place.

Besides, it is not for you to choose which the real issue is. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a beloved doctrine of Christianity hundreds of years before you were born.

Moreover, if it is not an issue for you how come you have contacted me just to question it. It means it is an issue for you otherwise you should have let Catholics believe what they believe. Your actions betray your statements.

This is what is truly important and a requirement (in my oppinion) of every Christian.

The Fathers of the Church who defended the Divinity of the Lord are the same scholars and Bishops who defended the Virgin Birth of the Lord and they are also the same Church leaders who defended the Perpetual Virginity of the Lord.

Once again yours is an opinion and we prefer the opinions of the early Christians rather than the newly invented ideas of the Evangelicals rooted in the heresy of Helvidius.

The of issue perpetual virginity is only a cause for division among Christians.

The Christian world was unanimously proclaiming the Perpetual Virginity of Mary during the First Century of Christianity when both East and West were still united. Until now the Latin Church of the West and the Greek Church of the East are united in believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Division came when Helvidius tried to impose his heresy. He was condemned unanimously. And the evangelic adopted his heresy and propagated it. Thus, the cause of division is the heresy of Helvidius which your church have swallowed. Of course, we will never accept such heresy.

Non-christians don't care at all about proving or disproving it.

Of course, they won’t care about it; they are NON CHRISTIANS. How can the Buddhist prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? It is just like asking you to prove the doctrine of Nirvana.

Indeed, their approach is simply to deny the virginity altogether to the point where I have read of some saying that Mary was raped and this is how Christ was borned. This is without question an issue of faith or the lack thereoff.

O that is what you mean. The pagans are denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How nice.

Haven’t you notice, the Evangelical position is being supported by Pagans and the enemies of Christianity such as Dan Brown and the rest:

1. The pagans claim that Mary was raped.

2. The Jews claim that Mary had an illicit affair.

3. The Atheists deny the Virgin Birth and the Perpetual Virginity by saying that Jesus’ is of Joseph

4. Helvidius the heretic declares that Mary had other biological children

5. Dan Brown and James Cameron concocted stories based from pagan and Gnostic sources of Jesus having biological siblings.

6. The Evangelicals teaches that Jesus have biological siblings.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX WHICH ARE THE TWO OLDEST BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY JOINTLY DEFENDS THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY.

ARE YOU NOT ASHAMED OF YOUR POSITION? YOU HAVE IT IN COMMON WITH THE PAGANS, THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN JEWS, HERETIC, THE ATHEISTS, THE ENEMIES OF THE FAITH AND THE GNOSTIC WRITERS? SO, DOCTRINALLY YOU’VE GOT SAME FEATHERS WITH THESE GROUPS.

The Angels and Saints in Heaven

Now I wish to change subjects and see what you views are on the following passages. I haven't yet heard explanations that I truly consider satisfactory for these so I would to see what you have to say about them: Luke 9:57-62 - Specially on the issue of death burying their death. These were some strong words of Jesus. I think I understand some of it but some of it is so strong that I am not clear I "get it". Do you have anything to say about that.

For us Catholics it means that the Lord Jesus is telling that man or disciple the demand of following him. Following Jesus calls for self-denial and for putting God before everything else, including the family.

It is obvious that the man wanted to follow Jesus but making condition that he be allowed to bury his father or to say goodbye to his parents or family. The answer of Jesus can only be interpreted as leave your family and follow me. It is not rejection of his biological family because Jesus never rejected His own mother but it means making the mission a priority over family.

The Apostles know these because Jesus demanded the same thing from them and they obeyed: “Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.” [Matthew 4:21]

The Evangelical Pastors have not abandoned their father. In fact many of them are successors of their father who personally invented their church. It is common among Evangelicals to have a DYNASTIC CHURCH. Ha, ha, ha... That is some thing that Jesus and the Apostles never ever did.

Much more, they did not only remain in the family they also became fathers themselves. So, how can they speak of leaving the family to follow Jesus? The bedroom is too comfortable for them. Thus, many pastors are working for their family the whole week with only the weekend reserve for the Lord. The Catholic pastors are staying in the parish the whole week long and always available for the need of his flock. He has no other job except his being a shepherd of the flock entrusted to him. He can do that because he has no wife and kids to feed.

1 Cor 15:29 - what does this means?

O now it is clear to me. The dead burying the dead that you are referring above is a tool for you to debunk our Catholic Doctrine of Intercession of Saints.

How can you do that? You have already admitted that the Saints are alive. Now you are using the verses used by Evangelicals to prove that the Saints are dead and therefore they cannot hear, they cannot see and they cannot know. You are being inconsistent Jorge. Are the souls of the Holy One in Heaven alive or not?

If they are ALIVE FOR YOU as you have admitted the above verses are useless because they do not fit? You should throw these verses to the corpses in the cemeteries and not to the Spirits of the Just men made perfect in Heaven [cf. Hebrews 12:23].

If they are NOT ALIVE OR DEAD FOR YOU then it means that your position is contrary to the Book of Revelation which shows these souls singing and praising God in Heaven with the Angels.

Now going to 1 Cor 15:29: “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?”

Well, I have checked several Bible commentaries, both Catholics and Protestants and there seems to be about 30 interpretations of it. But, the prevailing interpretation is that there were Christians who were Baptized for the Dead Christian. Let me cite it:

Baptized for the dead (βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν)

Concerning this expression, of which some thirty different explanations are given, it is best to admit frankly that we lack the facts for a decisive interpretation. None of the explanations proposed are free from objection. Paul is evidently alluding to a usage familiar to his readers; and the term employed was, as Godet remarks, in their vocabulary, a sort of technical phrase. A large number of both ancient and modern commentators adopt the view that a living Christian was baptized for an unbaptized dead Christian. The Greek expositors regarded the words the dead as equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, and the baptism as a manifestation of belief in the doctrine of the resurrection. Godet adopts the explanation which refers baptism to martyrdom - the baptism of blood - and cites Luk_12:50, and Mar_10:38. In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above. [Vincent’s Word Studies]

The majority opinion form ancient and modern scholars favour the Catholic doctrine that the Holy Ones on earth can offer to God for the good of the souls of those who have died: a living Christian was baptized for an unbaptized dead Christian. This is obviously very Catholic. The other concerning the Baptism of Blood is also a Catholic Doctrine. That those who were unbaptized but died for Christ their martyrdom is considered as Baptism by Blood.

God bless you!

Jorge

God bless you too!

Fr. Abe, CRS