|
|||||
|
Marcel LeRoy not only knows very little about the United States Constitution; he also knows very little about the Roman Catholic Church or the history of Christianity. In his recent piece, "A Biblical Approach" [April 19], he accuses the Catholic Church of going against the Word of God by prohibiting its priests from being married. His article contains one misconception after another. More ... In his April 19 article for The Voice, Marcel LeRoy argues that the discipline of celibacy for Catholic priests of the Latin Rite is not "A Biblical Approach." I respectfully disagree. Jesus himself was of the priesthood of Melchizedek, as Psalm 110 affirms: "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." It is in reference to Melchizedek that the word priest first appears in the Bible, in Gen. 14:18. Melchizedek is relevant here because he was a "priest of God Most High" who gave a priestly blessing in God's name and offered bread and wine in sacrifice. Sound familiar? Hebrews 7 says: "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God … is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever." So Melchizedek, the prefigure of Jesus the Son of God, had no family records, no listing of a wife or children. In other words, he was a celibate priest. More ... Noel Ambery has implied that the gospel writers were untrustworthy, since they are often "inconsistent" with each other [The Crucifixion, March 29]. I maintain that they are very consistent with the central thrust of the story and its teachings. Any noted inconsistencies occur with "peripheral" details, such as how many women discovered the empty tomb, etc. Ancient writings usually aren't concerned with secondary details, only with central teachings and events. They will take liberties with situations and peripherals, as long as the central truth is maintained. This style is abhorrent to our modern sensibilities, but in the first century it was widely accepted. Modern scholars judge New Testament writings with modern standards, when they should be trying to understand the journalistic style of the first century! More ... |
|
||||
