[soc.religion.christian] Discipline vs. Doctrine

gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (06/09/90)

[please post this]
In regard to the celebate priesthood, some have distinguished between
discipline and doctrine.  My comment is that this distinction is not
significant when the discipline is mandatory.  The question is, are
priests allowed to be married at all?

The point, in my mind, is that there is a certain view of what a holy
life is, and that this involves non-biblical assumptions.  Because
this view has been captured in the tradition of the Roman Church, and
because this tradition is taken as authoritative, there is no easy way
to critique it.

It is interesting that one poster uses apocryphal Christian writings
to give evidence for the holiness of celibacy in early Christian
thought.  To my mind, the fact that these writings did not make it
into the canon gives an indication that they do not faithfully reflect
what God wanted to reveal in Christ.

In Collosians, we read
----------------------------------------
  If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe,
why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?  Why do you
submit to regulations, ``Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch''
(referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to
human precepts and doctrines?  These have indeed an appearance of
wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity
to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of
the flesh.
----------------------------------------

I think much of the difficulty I have with the Roman view of
spirituality can be understood from this passage,  especially the last
sentence.
--
Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com 
Are Saturday morning cartoons proof that adults hate kids?
 Answer: Yes.   (From "Life in Hell")