Vatican "clampdown" on liberal opinion

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

For what I gather, and this is but one example, your God and your Jesus allows you to divorce and remarry. I can find no Biblical support for this. Just cause divorce, yes; remarriage while ones first spouse is still alive, no. Hence one must conclude that you believe in something completely different or are using a completely erroneous Biblical translation.

As far as I know, I've never mentioned divorce or marriage thus far in my posts.

Limited divorce and remarriage is permitted by Jesus Himself:

Matthew 19:9 wrote:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I know, I've never mentioned divorce or marriage thus far in my posts.

No, but I did in one of my earlier posts as the abuse of the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist was mentioned in the OP. It is also considered to be the starting point for the English Reformation, or Henry Tudors at least.

And I've had enough of the insinuations from Protestants that Catholics are in error. I think it's about time someone took a look at where the Protestants are in error.

Jakkass wrote: »

Limited divorce and remarriage is permitted by Jesus Himself:

Not quite - you quoted one line completely out of context.

Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Mark 10:2-12:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;
12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Matthew 19:3-10 (note v. 9, is similar to Matt. 5:32):
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."

Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 in support of marriage as ordained by God.

Nowhere does does explicitly say it is acceptable to remarry. You may divorce for reasons of unchastity or adultery, but the right to remarry does not exist. Remarriage constitutes adultery.

We know from the context that the Pharisees were testing Jesus, to get him to take sides in a dispute. The Rabbi Shammai regarded adultery and immoral behaviour as acceptable grounds for divorce (similar to saying divorce and remarriage is acceptable if there is adultery) but the Rabbi Hillel held any reason was sufficient grounds for divorce and it was this second interpretation of the law which was in fact practiced. (Shillebeeckx, O.P. Marriage: Human Reality and Saving Mystery 1965).

It is obvious from Mt. 19:10 that his disciples were surprised to see that Jesus did not side with either of the Rabbic schools of thought. For anyone to say today that sexual immorality on the part of one spouse is moral grounds for divorce and remarriage is to side with Rabbi Shammai, and that is exactly what Jesus did not do.

But as with most Protestants you think you know better than God or Jesus, yes?

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

No, but I did in one of my earlier posts as the abuse of the Sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist was mentioned in the OP. It is also considered to be the starting point for the English Reformation, or Henry Tudors at least.

Such an understanding would be flawed. Here is an interesting documentary on the truth of the English Reformation if you are interested in a fuller elaboration on what happened.

StealthRolex wrote: »

And I've had enough of the insinuations from Protestants that Catholics are in error. I think it's about time someone took a look at where the Protestants are in error.

Please, take a look at this thread and others. I and antiskeptic merely questioned the approach of the Apostolic Visitation. Now the whole thread is dealing with the Reformation.

I believe that there are areas of Catholic teaching which are mistaken, likewise you believe that there are areas of Protestant / Reformed thinking that is mistaken. Such questioning is welcome on this forum.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Not quite - you quoted one line completely out of context.

I'm not sure if I have, the verse is there in its entirety. I would like to open this up for discussion perhaps on another thread at a later point to allow for broader discussion on it though.

It is common for differing sections of the Gospels to go more into detail in certain respects than others. For example Luke adds the Parable of the Good Samaritan, not contained in any of the other Gospels, and indeed John and Mark don't include the Virgin Birth. However, we would all be in agreement that the Virgin Birth did happen, and the Parable of the Good Samaritan was uttered by Jesus.

The same is true of Matthew 19:9.

StealthRolex wrote: »

But as with most Protestants you think you know better than God or Jesus, yes?

Of course not. The point is that people should get into a direct relationship with Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, rather than having additional church teaching added on to the actual Scriptures themselves. That would be my view.

I don't agree with elements of Roman Catholic teaching, but I would say that Roman Catholics are a part of the wider Christian community. I'm not sure if you would say that of me though.

antiskeptic

Please, take a look at this thread and others. I and antiskeptic merely questioned the approach of the Apostolic Visitation. Now the whole thread is dealing with the Reformation.

I believe that there are areas of Catholic teaching which are mistaken, likewise you believe that there are areas of Protestant / Reformed thinking that is mistaken. Such questioning is welcome on this forum.

Blessed is the peacemaker..

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Please, take a look at this thread and others. I and antiskeptic merely questioned the approach of the Apostolic Visitation. Now the whole thread is dealing with the Reformation.

Ah yes, the original "liberal opinion" when Satan found some willingly corruptible minds. He could not cause the collapse of the Catholic Church as Christ had so ordained that he could not prevail against her so he went about setting up some rivals, all poor reflections and littered with self corrupting errors.

A minor success on his part especially when he successfully laid the planks in their eyes that would lead then to consider the Catholic Church to be the whore of Babylon and a satanic puppet. Little do they know that they are the ones being played a merry tune by the fallen one.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ah yes, the original "liberal opinion" when Satan found some willingly corruptible minds. He could not cause the collapse of the Catholic Church as Christ had so ordained that he could not prevail against her so he went about setting up some rivals, all poor reflections and littered with self corrupting errors.


A minor success on his part especially when he successfully laid the planks in their eyes that would lead then to consider the Catholic Church to be the whore of Babylon and a satanic puppet. Little do they know that they are the ones being played a merry tune by the fallen one.

On a right royal hiding to nothing is the peacemaker

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

On a right royal hiding to nothing is the peacemaker

I don't trust a "peacemaker" who previously described the Catholic Church, or was it the Pope, as a satanic puppet.

There is one Jesus Christ. There can be only one True Church.

Which one is it and why?

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't trust a "peacemaker" who previously described the Catholic Church, or was it the Pope, as a satanic puppet.

That was probably me. Jackass is the one bent on peacemaking.

There is one Jesus Christ. There can be only one True Church.

On essentials let there be unity..

Which one is it and why?

What do you mean which one? As in which denomination is the true church? I think you're supposing something physical to represent something spiritual.

There is only one true church. And that's Christs church. Not denominations set up by men (whether or not they claim scriptural authority to do so or not)

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

That was probably me. Jackass is the one bent on peacemaking.

Apologies to jackass. My judgement is somewhat clouded by experiences with English Protestants the vast majority of whom hate the Pope and tend to be somewhat derogatory towards Catholics and Catholicism. I just love the way they love accusing Catholics of the very things they are supremely guilty of.

antiskeptic wrote: »

On essentials let there be unity..

That would be nice but if there is more than one Christian Church how can there be unity?
That said there are any number of Churches that disagree on the fundamentals, never mind the essentials.

Would it not be better to act as the Prodigal did and return to the Christs Church?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you mean which one? As in which denomination is the true church? I think you're supposing something physical to represent something spiritual.

Indeed for the Catholic Church is spiritual and not physical. It's physical manifestation is the congregation which is something we have no choice over in our current human state. As for physical centers of prayer and administration - well that is the necessity of any human organisation. When people are gathered together in his name... could be under a hedge as much as in St. Peters.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is only one true church. And that's Christs church. Not denominations set up by men (whether or not they claim scriptural authority to do so or not)

Catholic Church = Christs Church. Set up by Christs instructions to St. Peter.

Protestant Churches, other denominational churches = set up by men.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is only one true church. And that's Christs church. Not denominations set up by men (whether or not they claim scriptural authority to do so or not)

I think people desire the security of an organisation. Like some desire the Law. As much as we all love the idea of being liberated by Christ, many don't like the responsibility that bestows on us. Following rules/laws or a particular organisations rites etc, can be restrictive, but for many its easier than having to think for themselves.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Apologies to jackass. My judgement is somewhat clouded by experiences with English Protestants the vast majority of whom hate the Pope and tend to be somewhat derogatory towards Catholics and Catholicism. I just love the way they love accusing Catholics of the very things they are supremely guilty of.

Without love....

My own feelings about Roman Catholicism are strong. But I don't tend to attack the person. Rather I attack the belief. The two are distinct.

That would be nice but if there is more than one Christian Church how can there be unity?

How can there be one family if there are more than 1 members of that family. Does the fact that Joe Briggs differs from Janet Briggs mean there is more than one Briggs family.

That said there are any number of Churches that disagree on the fundamentals, never mind the essentials.

And they disagree about what constitutes fundamentals. That there is but one Christ and one church of Christ is something we can agree on. It's not much - given that what we understand by church of Christ differs.

Would it not be better to act as the Prodigal did and return to the Christs Church?

What possible point is there is asking something of me that I could ask of you?

Not that I think that's necessarily as easy for you as it is for me. For me to enter Christs church (as you understand it) I'd have to do a, b and c (get baptised, recant my un-Catholic faith, etc). For you to enter Christs church (as I understand it) you'd have to be born again spiritually (as I understand it). You might be born again already (as I understand it) in which case you are already in Christs church (as I understand it) and can stay in Roman Catholicism for all it matters. If not born again (as I understand it), then there's not a whole lot you can do as such. Salvation isn't about doing, as I've been pointing out. It only by faith

Indeed for the Catholic Church is spiritual and not physical. It's physical manifestation is the congregation which is something we have no choice over in our current human state. As for physical centers of prayer and administration - well that is the necessity of any human organisation. When people are gathered together in his name... could be under a hedge as much as in St. Peters.

Okay. In which case we're back to the bun fight. Whose version of Christs church is the real thing.

Catholic Church = Christs Church. Set up by Christs instructions to St. Peter.

Says who? If not men who say that that's what a mere snippet of a verse means. A mere snippet of a verse - and lo and behold, before you can say "salvation by faith plus works" you've got men pulling an entire doctrine out of their eisegitical hat.

Could you tell me how you escape this conundrum given that there's no way to escape the charge of man-making other than to assume it wasn't man made?

In your own time mind..

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

I think people desire the security of an organisation. Like some desire the Law. As much as we all love the idea of being liberated by Christ, many don't like the responsibility that bestows on us. Following rules/laws or a particular organisations rites etc, can be restrictive, but for many its easier than having to think for themselves.

Sorry for quoting myself, but I just wanted to clarify something about the above. Although these people feel the security etc of organisation etc, they really don't realise what they're missing by rejecting freedom in Christ. It something that takes work no doubt as sin always raises its ugly head. Its joyous rewards are worth it though. Love is king.

smurfhousing

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NLydHsxn-mw/TA1x7R8Ln0I/AAAAAAAABNE/Yc5t1TNfQ3k/s1600/yarn+diagram+of+christianity+2.jpg

This is the problem.

philologos

The assumption that all churches were originally the RCC is what I wouldn't agree with. The early church was the Christian church, in which there were differing types of church, the Jewish church under James, the Gentile church under Paul, Timothy and Silas, the Armenian church under Jude and Barnabas, the Indian church (which remained separate from the RCC when it was established) under Thomas.

I believe the Christian message, is more important than favouring one denomination over another, precisely because it is the Gospel that is most important.

I find the argument that the RCC was the only church, and the one true church to be unsubstantiated. One denomination in a larger Christian community seems more accurate.

JimiTime

smurfhousing wrote: »

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NLydHsxn-mw/TA1x7R8Ln0I/AAAAAAAABNE/Yc5t1TNfQ3k/s1600/yarn+diagram+of+christianity+2.jpg

This is the problem.

Its quite apt actually, the RCC tied us up in a big knot, the reformation untied it. In doing so, it allowed people be free in Christ again. I don't agree with people like Luther etc, and I'm disturbed by some of his dogma (On Jews for example). However, I thank God for people like him for standing up to the big bully RCC which did not even give the message in the native tongue. No, rather, it said, 'Leave your sprituality in our hands, we'll look after it'. 'Do these rites and you'll get to heaven'. Then introduced indulgences etc. He started a trend which has saved us from a monolith corrupted institution, and probably saved that very institution also from getting so corrupt that there would be no turning back. The reformation showed the emperor had no clothes on. Thats all that was required. Its great that alot of people these days choose to think and meditate on God and his wisdom, and don't lazily hand their spiritual health to 'superiors'. That is the legacy of the reformation, as well as Catholics being able to read their bibles in their native tongue.

StealthRolex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its quite apt actually, the RCC tied us up in a big knot, the reformation untied it. In doing so, it allowed people be free in Christ again. I don't agree with people like Luther etc, and I'm disturbed by some of his dogma (On Jews for example). However, I thank God for people like him for standing up to the big bully RCC which did not even give the message in the native tongue. No, rather, it said, 'Leave your sprituality in our hands, we'll look after it'. 'Do these rites and you'll get to heaven'. Then introduced indulgences etc. He started a trend which has saved us from a monolith corrupted institution, and probably saved that very institution also from getting so corrupt that there would be no turning back. The reformation showed the emperor had no clothes on. Thats all that was required. Its great that alot of people these days choose to think and meditate on God and his wisdom, and don't lazily hand their spiritual health to 'superiors'. That is the legacy of the reformation, as well as Catholics being able to read their bibles in their native tongue.

I think you will find indulgences where instituted by Jesus on the Cross when he forgave the criminal and promised him he would be in Paradise with Him on the same day. They were not invented by the Church.
Anyway, some Protestants have their own indulgences if they teach that their sins are forgiven ahead of time, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and that they therefore are assured of heaven.

It was the abuse of indulgences though trading them that cause the problems leading to the Reformation.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

The assumption that all churches were originally the RCC is what I wouldn't agree with. The early church was the Christian church, in which there were differing types of church, the Jewish church under James, the Gentile church under Paul, Timothy and Silas, the Armenian church under Jude and Barnabas, the Indian church (which remained separate from the RCC when it was established) under Thomas.

I believe the Christian message, is more important than favouring one denomination over another, precisely because it is the Gospel that is most important.

I find the argument that the RCC was the only church, and the one true church to be unsubstantiated. One denomination in a larger Christian community seems more accurate.

And St. Peter? Not important enough to warrant a mention or too controversial?

"Thou art Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build MY Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.." (Matthew 16:19).

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

And St. Peter? Not important enough to warrant a mention or too controversial?

"Thou art Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build MY Church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.." (Matthew 16:19).

I don't question that Peter was the chief Apostle of the early church by any means. Particularly with the section at the end of John's Gospel. Peter, was hugely important in Christian mission and in building strong churches throughout the world.

I don't know whether or not we can link Peter directly to the RCC in any amount of certainty. Indeed, I would question if the church Jesus is referring to is the RCC. It seems that he is speaking about the Christian church.

But, for arguments sake, if Peter was indeed the first Pope as the RCC make him out to be there is the question of whether or not clergy should be allowed to marry, if Peter, the first Pope was.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who? If not men who say that that's what a mere snippet of a verse means. A mere snippet of a verse - and lo and behold, before you can say "salvation by faith plus works" you've got men pulling an entire doctrine out of their eisegitical hat.

Could you tell me how you escape this conundrum given that there's no way to escape the charge of man-making other than to assume it wasn't man made?

In your own time mind..

Well you either believe the Biblical record or you don't otherwise by another snippet sola scriptura pulls an entirely different doctrine out of an existentially redundant biretta

Or does it...

Hmmm... was it sola fide... no possibly, sola gratia... or maybe solus Christus ... darn that yarn... Oh, may be it was soli Deo gloria.

As far as alone in the context of any of the above is concerned the Bible mentions it but once: James 2:24:You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

There is no Biblical support for any sola and the only mention of it contradicts its use in Protestantism. Adhering to them only takes us away form Christs messge.

Explain that conundrum... in your own time.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't question that Peter was the chief Apostle of the early church by any means. Particularly with the section at the end of John's Gospel. Peter, was hugely important in Christian mission and in building strong churches throughout the world.

I don't know whether or not we can link Peter directly to the RCC in any amount of certainty. Indeed, I would question if the church Jesus is referring to is the RCC. It seems that he is speaking about the Christian church.

But, for arguments sake, if Peter was indeed the first Pope as the RCC make him out to be there is the question of whether or not clergy should be allowed to marry, if Peter, the first Pope was.

I'm sure you are more than capable of researching that yourself and if you can prove the Roman Catholic claim to Apostolic Succession to be in error do feel free to enlighten us.

As for clerical celibacy there is much to support it in the Bible. Mainly St. Paul. and of course the words of Jesus.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm sure you are more than capable of researching that yourself and if you can prove the Roman Catholic claim to Apostolic Succession to be in error do feel free to enlighten us.

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church started circa 4th century, when Constantine called the Council of Nicea. I would refer to the church starting from the Apostles as the Christian church. I regard this church as a genuine church, but over time misunderstandings entered the church, as it can with any church. This is what led to the Reformation, which was a movement to restore the church, and to challenge these misunderstandings.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't the only claimant of Apostolic succession either.

By the by, I see no reason why the onus should be on me to disprove Apostolic succession (bear in mind I have no interest in doing so), as that isn't the question.

The question is whether or not I can genuinely say that the RCC = the Christian church starting from Christ and the Apostles. I'm not sure I can.

StealthRolex wrote: »

IAs for clerical celibacy there is much to support it in the Bible. Mainly St. Paul. and of course the words of Jesus.

The Bible says that celibacy is good for those who can hold to it, and indeed Paul goes on to say that it is best not to marry. Nowhere does the Scripture say that ministers shouldn't marry. In the Old Covenant, priests were married. In the New Covenant ministers can be married. Paul himself notes that Peter took at Christian wife:

1 Corinthians 9:5 wrote:

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Timothy 3:2-5 wrote:

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

1 Timothy 3:12 wrote:

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

I think also ministers who can relate to having a family of their own, can be an invaluable source of wisdom in the church, helping people with marital issues, helping people with their children and so on.

In the RCC at present, there are priests who are married. It is merely not in the Western rite, and even in the Western rite, those Anglican ministers who defected to Rome who had wives have not divorced.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church started circa 4th century, when Constantine called the Council of Nicea. I would refer to the church starting from the Apostles as the Christian church. I regard this church as a genuine church, but over time misunderstandings entered the church, as it can with any church. This is what led to the Reformation, which was a movement to restore the church, and to challenge these misunderstandings.

Why then did it result in schism? Were they not happy to work from within rather than without?

Jakkass wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church isn't the only claimant of Apostolic succession either.

True and the other Churches that do claim it are also Catholic.

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, I see no reason why the onus should be on me to disprove Apostolic succession (bear in mind I have no interest in doing so), as that isn't the question.

Maybe not but the Protestant Churches histories only go back 500 years or so, not 2000.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible says that celibacy is good for those who can hold to it, and indeed Paul goes on to say that it is best not to marry. Nowhere does the Scripture say that ministers shouldn't marry. In the Old Covenant, priests were married. In the New Covenant ministers can be married. Paul Himself notes that Peter took at Christian wife:

I think also ministers who can relate to having a family of their own, can be an invaluable source of wisdom in the church, helping people with marital issues, helping people with their children and so on.

In the RCC at present, there are priests who are married. It is merely not in the Western rite, and even in the Western rite, those Anglican ministers who defected to Rome who had wives have not divorced.

I'm not sure that defecting Anglicans should be getting divorced as that could potentially leave his wife prey to sin. It would certainly not be a requirement anyroad. And I agree they do bring wisdom and it is is welcome.

However we also have St Paul advising...

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

and further

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)

and this is the nub of the celibacy issue. A man cannot serve both the Church and his wife without one interfering with the other and this is one of the reasons for clerical celibacy.

Christ Himself suggested it in Matthew

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

I agree there is no strict Biblical prohibition on clerical marriage however neither is there a Biblical directive and the Bible through St Paul and Matthew clearly states that the chaste and celibate state is better.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why then did it result in schism? Were they not happy to work from within rather than without?

You know why the Reformers had to work outside the RCC. It was because they weren't willing to listen.

StealthRolex wrote: »

True and the other Churches that do claim it are also Catholic.

Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox? They might be catholic, as in the universal church, but they aren't Roman Catholic.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Maybe not but the Protestant Churches histories only go back 500 years or so, not 2000.

The faith that was there from the 1st century still continues to all people who believe in the Gospel.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not sure that defecting Anglicans should be getting divorced as that could potentially leave his wife prey to sin. It would certainly not be a requirement anyroad. And I agree they do bring wisdom and it is is welcome.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I agree there is no strict Biblical prohibition on clerical marriage however neither is there a Biblical directive and the Bible through St Paul and Matthew clearly states that the chaste and celibate state is better.

There may well be prohibition. Irrespective of whether the chaste state is better, married ministers can be very effective at relating to people in family situations.

Paul in 1 Timothy even says that how one deals with their family is a good testimony for how they are likely to lead the church. Even still, we have this dichotomy even within world Roman Catholicism, that in some regions and in some circumstances that you can keep your family, but for others it is a prohibition and you will be kicked out of the priesthood for it.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I
The Bible says that celibacy is good for those who can hold to it, and indeed Paul goes on to say that it is best not to marry. Nowhere does the Scripture say that ministers shouldn't marry. In the Old Covenant, priests were married. In the New Covenant ministers can be married. Paul Himself notes that Peter took at Christian wife:

Stating that Paul notes that Peter took a Christian wife is suggesting that he took a wife after he met Jesus which is not the case.

I think you will find that Peter was married before he met Christ and was going by the name of Simon (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38). His wife no doubt was also a follower of Jesus and travelled with him (1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Pet. 5:13)

If you have a reference from St.Paul where St. Peter took a Christian wife after his first wife was martyred please post as it would be of profound interest.

philologos

StealthRolex - The point is Paul noted rather clearly that it was within the rights of ministers to marry. The Old Covenant precadent also makes the same point.

So if one was really to base the church on Peter's leadership one could see a much better case for removing compulsory clerical celibacy.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

You know why the Reformers had to work outside the RCC. It was because they weren't willing to listen.

I know, I know... Reformers never listen...all the time with "you're wrong here" and "you're wrong there".

Jakkass wrote: »

Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox? They might be catholic, as in the universal church, but they aren't Roman Catholic.

So which kind of catholic are you - Anglical, Orthodox?

Jakkass wrote: »

The faith that was there from the 1st century still continues to all people who believe in the Gospel.

Only partially. The original Protestant Bible was short a few books. Still is I hear tell. Or maybe we should just fillet the Bible and only use the four Gospels and nothing else.

Jakkass wrote: »

There may well be prohibition. Irrespective of whether the chaste state is better, married ministers can be very effective at relating to people in family situations.

And that would be in your opinion. You see for 2000 years the Church really hasn't had much of an issue with this and even if the Pill, the Sexual Revolution and all that Jazz since the 1960s has gotten a few people upset about it in more recent years as far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned it has served it will, it is supported by Jesus, St Paul and the Church Fathers and no, it is not going to change its mind on this any time soon.
As for relating to people in family situations there are many many lay married couples with children who serve in that capacity already so there is no need for the priests to get married.

Jakkass wrote: »

Paul in 1 Timothy even says that how one deals with their family is a good testimony for how they are likely to lead the church. Even still, we have this dichotomy even within world Roman Catholicism, that in some regions and in some circumstances that you can keep your family, but for others it is a prohibition and you will be kicked out of the priesthood for it.

Dealing with ones parents, siblings, grand parents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and cousins is all dealing with family and gives equally good testimony.

If any Church had to wait on a man to marry and raise a family so he could give testimony we would be much shorter on priests than we are now. It is a nonesensical argument. Do anglican vicars have to marry and prove themselves before they sign up for the collar? Get real.

And when was Timothy written and to what audience? In the early days of the Church you took whatever convert you could, whomsoever was willing for the task ahead. St. Paul gave his position regarding marriage but he wasn't about to shoot himself in the foot at that stage by refusing those already married. He needed workers.

Of course there may be priests or potential priests today who have a gripe with celibacy. This is natural. And it is their choice. If they don't want it they don't become priests. Simple.

But equally there are many priests who thank God every day that they don't have to deal with a wife.

An awful lot is heard in confession.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

StealthRolex - The point is Paul noted rather clearly that it was within the rights of ministers to marry. The Old Covenant precadent also makes the same point.

So if one was really to base the church on Peter's leadership one could see a much better case for removing compulsory clerical celibacy.

Can I suggest you send your link to the Pope. He's the man you need to convince, not me.

From my perspective based on the words of Jesus the call to celibacy - to be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven - is enough.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

But, for arguments sake, if Peter was indeed the first Pope as the RCC make him out to be there is the question of whether or not clergy should be allowed to marry, if Peter, the first Pope was.

I found this excellent article recently - it goes into great detail and is well worth a read: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1343466?eng=y

Throughout the first millennium and also afterward, in the Church the celibacy of the clergy was properly understood as "continence." Meaning as complete renunciation, after ordination, of conjugal life, even for those who had previously been married.

You can read more at the link!

StealthRolex

Jakkass, antiskeptic et al once again I thank you for helping me discover more about Catholicism and deepening my faith and understanding.

God bless you.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I know, I know... Reformers never listen...all the time with "you're wrong here" and "you're wrong there".

I meant that the RCC was unwilling to reform, and take on board the legitimate criticisms of the reformers.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So which kind of catholic are you - Anglical, Orthodox?

Christian first, Anglican second.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Only partially. The original Protestant Bible was short a few books. Still is I hear tell. Or maybe we should just fillet the Bible and only use the four Gospels and nothing else.

If it is worth noting, the Deuterocanonical texts in between the Old Testament, and the New Testament are still considered in Anglicanism.

StealthRolex wrote: »

And that would be in your opinion. You see for 2000 years the Church really hasn't had much of an issue with this and even if the Pill, the Sexual Revolution and all that Jazz since the 1960s has gotten a few people upset about it in more recent years as far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned it has served it will, it is supported by Jesus, St Paul and the Church Fathers and no, it is not going to change its mind on this any time soon.
As for relating to people in family situations there are many many lay married couples with children who serve in that capacity already so there is no need for the priests to get married.

Merely repeating that the RCC won't change isn't an argument. It's not about whether or not there is a need, it is whether or not it is condemned by the early church. Again, I will also note that the Latin Rite permits this.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If any Church had to wait on a man to marry and raise a family so he could give testimony we would be much shorter on priests than we are now. It is a nonesensical argument. Do anglican vicars have to marry and prove themselves before they sign up for the collar? Get real.

I never said they had to wait. I said they should have the option. People serve differently in the church, this includes the way that ministers preach and relate to their congregations.

StealthRolex wrote: »

And when was Timothy written and to what audience? In the early days of the Church you took whatever convert you could, whomsoever was willing for the task ahead. St. Paul gave his position regarding marriage but he wasn't about to shoot himself in the foot at that stage by refusing those already married. He needed workers.

1 Timothy clearly says that how one controls ones children is a good testament as to how one is likely to lead the church. It doesn't say that it is a temporary change either. Paul is passing on the baton to his brother in Christ Timothy to continue doing what he has done.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course there may be priests or potential priests today who have a gripe with celibacy. This is natural. And it is their choice. If they don't want it they don't become priests. Simple.

Or become a minister, serve Jesus and have a family.

StealthRolex wrote: »

But equally there are many priests who thank God every day that they don't have to deal with a wife.

It is their prerogative if they do not want to be married.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

If it is worth noting, the Deuterocanonical texts in between the Old Testament, and the New Testament are still considered in Anglicanism.

and the reason they are called apocryphal is?
and the reason they are hidden down the back is?

You see, there has to be a question mark over any faith that calls itself Christian yet after 1600 years of scholarly maintenance and theological study decides to throw away certain books when starting a new religion.

The Lutheran bible does away with Hebrews, James, Jude and the Book of Revelation. Why? Is there something dangerous in them?

Tell me, when you buy a new piece of technological kit which book of instructions are you going to throw away?
Try tearing out the page that says don't use your 1pod in the shower so you can use it in the shower. Does it still work? It doesn't say not to use it in the shower any more so it should, right?

Try it sometime.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

1 Timothy clearly says that how one controls ones children is a good testament as to how one is likely to lead the church. It doesn't say that it is a temporary change either. Paul is passing on the baton to his brother in Christ Timothy to continue doing what he has done.

Slightly ironic that you should pick a passage that describes "work" while holding the view that "works" are not necessary for salvation.

It seems strange that a faith that proclaims sola fide should also have people who do works in the name of Christ. You call them vicars, yes?

Just seems a bit incongruous...

However as I understand it the Anglican Church is undergoing a slow reformation to become more Catholic these days - "New Perspective on Paul" I think is part of it. That must be comforting to know that the powers that be in your denomination will be making doctrinal decisions for you in an effort to bring closer harmony with Roman Catholicism.

Just another ecumenical matter.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Slightly ironic that you should pick a passage that describes "work" while holding the view that "works" are not necessary for salvation.

It seems strange that a faith that proclaims sola fide should also have people who do works in the name of Christ. You call them vicars, yes?

Just seems a bit incongruous...

If it seems incongruous you're probably misunderstanding my position. I believe that works are the fruit of faith. I.E - Ones faith isn't living, or even genuine faith at all without works. Faith without works is definitely dead.

StealthRolex wrote: »

However as I understand it the Anglican Church is undergoing a slow reformation to become more Catholic these days - "New Perspective on Paul" I think is part of it. That must be comforting to know that the powers that be in your denomination will be making doctrinal decisions for you in an effort to bring closer harmony with Roman Catholicism.

I don't think you could say there is one position of Anglicanism on a lot of things. That's where it differs to Catholicism.

There are Anglo-Catholics in the churches, but from personal observation this isn't typical of Irish Anglicanism. Then there are broad-church, which is by far the most common, and Evangelical / Reformed Anglicans in pockets.

mdebets

StealthRolex wrote: »

and the reason they are called apocryphal is?
and the reason they are hidden down the back is?

You see, there has to be a question mark over any faith that calls itself Christian yet after 1600 years of scholarly maintenance and theological study decides to throw away certain books when starting a new religion.

The Lutheran bible does away with Hebrews, James, Jude and the Book of Revelation. Why? Is there something dangerous in them?

You should try to read a Lutheran Bible and learn about the history of the apocrypha, before you make such statements that are not true.

The apocrypha were not originally part of the Hebrew Bible, but where later used by Greek speaking Jews, so it was the Christians who added them later on to the Old Testament Cannon, to which they not originally belonged. Luther just restored the original (Jewish) version. He did however not totally away with the books, but put them between the Old and New Testament, as useful, but not canonical books. He didn't hide them somewhere, but they were in the Lutheran bible, for everyone to read (not just for the ones who spoke Latin).

A Lutheran bible also contains Hebrews, James, Jude and the Book of Revelation. Don't know where you got the idea from that it doesn't.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think you could say there is one position of Anglicanism on a lot of things. That's where it differs to Catholicism.

Indeed - the shifting sands. Come back tomorrow and the position will no doubt be different again.

I'll stick with the church built on rock

StealthRolex

mdebets wrote: »

You should try to read a Lutheran Bible and learn about the history of the apocrypha, before you make such statements that are not true.

The apocrypha were not originally part of the Hebrew Bible, but where later used by Greek speaking Jews, so it was the Christians who added them later on to the Old Testament Cannon, to which they not originally belonged. Luther just restored the original (Jewish) version. He did however not totally away with the books, but put them between the Old and New Testament, as useful, but not canonical books. He didn't hide them somewhere, but they were in the Lutheran bible, for everyone to read (not just for the ones who spoke Latin).

A Lutheran bible also contains Hebrews, James, Jude and the Book of Revelation. Don't know where you got the idea from that it doesn't.

There's a whole rake on it here if you fancy correcting it. Boards favourite resource.

Point taken, I was mistaken due to scrolling error. They are there but Luther didn't have much time for them.

Should have been Tobit, Judith, Maccabbes, Wisdom, Baruch and Sirach or maybe the wiki authors have gotten that wrong too.

Question still stands - why ignore or downgrade books for Protestants?

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Indeed - the shifting sands. Come back tomorrow and the position will no doubt be different again.

I'll stick with the church built on rock

That would also be a valid criticism if the church itself didn't change the way it did things in the past. Notable example - Vatican II. Or indeed, add extra-Biblical church doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception during the 19th century.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

That would also be a valid criticism if the church itself didn't change the way it did things in the past. Notable example - Vatican II. Or indeed, add extra-Biblical church doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception during the 19th century.

All organizations are subject to change over time and there have been numerous councils in the History of the Church. Granted, it takes a bit longer than other organisations, as it must satisfy itself that it is not in error and requires review of scripture and theological exploration.

Even a rock gets weathered and changes over time.

Other organisations change must faster and that is the criticism - not that change happens but the speed at with it happens and the direction.
Shifting sands with grasses bending to the wind it appears.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

All organizations are subject to change over time and there have been numerous councils in the History of the Church. Granted, it takes a bit longer than other organisations, as it must satisfy itself that it is not in error and requires review of scripture and theological exploration.

I agree!

That's a process that took place at the Reformation, and a process I would hope would continue in every church constantly examining ones direction, people being open to correction, and reviewing the way things are to go.

This is a valid response to your criticism of Anglicanism as well.

Every church has its issues, none are perfect. We (the congregations) must play a role in reviewing our church, and in questioning.

This is why the line "the church said it and that's it" doesn't work for me, because once humans play a role in the church, it needs questioning and examination to draw it back closer to the original Gospel.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree!

That's a process that took place at the Reformation, and a process I would hope would continue in every church constantly examining ones direction, people being open to correction, and reviewing the way things are to go.

This is a valid response to your criticism of Anglicanism as well.

Every church has its issues, none are perfect. We (the congregations) must play a role in reviewing our church, and in questioning.

This is why the line "the church said it and that's it" doesn't work for me, because once humans play a role in the church, it needs questioning and examination to draw it back closer to the original Gospel.

But why does the questioning and the acceptance that what when people are involved, what is written is unreliable and open to correction stop at the original Gospel? Surely if you apply that way of thinking at all you have to apply it universally, or even apply it more stringently the farther back in time you go?

philologos

strobe wrote: »

But why does the questioning and the acceptance that what when people are involved, what is written is unreliable and open to correction stop at the original Gospel? Surely if you apply that way of thinking at all you have to apply it universally, or even apply it more stringently the farther back in time you go?

Questioning can be useful in ones personal Biblical study as well, and indeed that's the strength of apologetics in that it intends to offer reasonable responses to peoples objections to the Gospel. As such such questioning can actually strengthen ones convictions rather than weaken them. I personally have come to the conclusion that the Gospel stands up to all scrutiny.

As a Christian community though, for that to remain a Christian community, they must retain the Gospel, and ensure that inspires everything that happens in the churches. Otherwise there would be no difference between the Christian community and the rest of the world which rejects the Gospel.

However, there is meant to be a difference.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

As a Christian community though, for that to remain a Christian community, they must retain the Gospel, and ensure that inspires everything that happens in the churches. Otherwise there would be no difference between the Christian community and the rest of the world which rejects the Gospel.

You see this with some of the "Christian Lite" denominations such as Unitarianism. They have rejected enough of the core teachings of the Gospel (and orthodoxy) to make me wonder why they bother.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

That would also be a valid criticism if the church itself didn't change the way it did things in the past. Notable example - Vatican II. Or indeed, add extra-Biblical church doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception during the 19th century.

The Feast of the The Immaculate Conception predates the 19th century and dates back to the 7th century - something the congregation were doing without direction from the hierarchy and something I though you would support.
It took 1000 years for the concept of the Immaculate Conception to become doctrinal so it would appear that some serious thought was given to that decision.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why the line "the church said it and that's it" doesn't work for me, because once humans play a role in the church, it needs questioning and examination to draw it back closer to the original Gospel.

This is the problem then isn't it. Some people have obedience issues and cannot deal with a hierarchical organisation telling them what to do even if that organisation was ordained by Christ Himself and is guided by the Holy Spirit.

But there are those who think they can do a better job of interpreting Scripture than the Church which has been doing it for 2000 years.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Feast of the The Immaculate Conception predates the 19th century and dates back to the 7th century - something the congregation were doing without direction from the hierarchy and something I though you would support.
It took 1000 years for the concept of the Immaculate Conception to become doctrinal so it would appear that some serious thought was given to that decision.

I guess for me, I don't think that someone 700 years after Christ could have really known the circumstances of his mothers birth.

It is more prudent from a historical level, to trust the sources which are most reliable.

I don't support disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreement. I do support thinking about why churches do things the way they do.

I can't just trust that serious thought was taking place. If I am to believe something I want to know that I can make sense of it myself.

StealthRolex wrote: »

This is the problem then isn't it. Some people have obedience issues and cannot deal with a hierarchical organisation telling them what to do even if that organisation was ordained by Christ Himself and is guided by the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe I have an "obedience issue" especially given that I have never had a formal role in the RCC. I do believe that people should care about their church, and have a real input into how their church makes decisions.

StealthRolex wrote: »

But there are those who think they can do a better job of interpreting Scripture than the Church which has been doing it for 2000 years.

You're making the assumption that the early church is the same thing as the RCC. We discussed this a few pages ago.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You see this with some of the "Christian Lite" denominations such as Unitarianism. They have rejected enough of the core teachings of the Gospel (and orthodoxy) to make me wonder why they bother.

I'm sure you know a lot more about it than me Fanny but I'd imagine it is a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of thing. They hold to some of the beliefs but not others, so rather than dismissing the whole lot, they focus on the ones they approve of....

I'm a different case to unitarians obviously but there are plenty of lessons and teachings in the Gospel I intromit and I think I would be doing myself a disservice if I was to just blanket reject them all because of the ones I do reject.

I kind of like the unitarian (small u) approach towards things, the dissmisal of unquestionable dogma. But I guess that's to be expected given my own beliefs.

pitkan

When history looks back at the Vaticans handling of the Murphy report will the headline be...Pope Dithered While the Faithful Departed?

Fanny Cradock

pitkan wrote: »

When history looks back at the Vaticans handling of the Murphy report will the headline be...Pope Dithered While the Faithful Departed?

Please take it to the Clerical Abuse thread.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess for me, I don't think that someone 700 years after Christ could have really known the circumstances of his mothers birth.

Conception mate - look it up.

The point is in the Bible Mary is described as "Full of Grace" and this would not be possible if she was born with Original Sin. Only a very special woman could give birth to the Son of God.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is more prudent from a historical level, to trust the sources which are most reliable.

The Church is reliable, has been for 2000 years because Jesus ordained that the gates of hell would not prevail against here.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't support disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreement. I do support thinking about why churches do things the way they do.

Indeed, as do I and then go and research it. The Church is no more wrong than the Bible.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't just trust that serious thought was taking place. If I am to believe something I want to know that I can make sense of it myself.

Trust goes hand in hand with obedience. Ask any pilot and air traffic controller. If you want to make sense of it you can but you must do the research if you are not will to take it on face value.
For the Immaculate Conception you could start here

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe I have an "obedience issue" especially given that I have never had a formal role in the RCC. I do believe that people should care about their church, and have a real input into how their church makes decisions.

At the local level one can on some issues - but on matters of Faith, Morals, Doctrine Dogma etc you need to be a Cardinal at least if not Pope. Christ did not institute a democratic Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're making the assumption that the early church is the same thing as the RCC. We discussed this a few pages ago.

Because we discussed it does not make it stand or mean that I must accept your point of view for any other reference. The title may have changed but the Church did not - the Roman Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ. Like a tree there are branches - some closer to the main body than others and some that bear no fruit, fall off and die.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the trunk and the more I search the more evidence I find to support that.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Conception mate - look it up.

The point is in the Bible Mary is described as "Full of Grace" and this would not be possible if she was born with Original Sin. Only a very special woman could give birth to the Son of God.

So God can't endow grace on an individual? God can't call people who would otherwise be unremarkable for His service? (Moses, David, Jeremiah, and Isaiah would all fall under this category)

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Church is reliable, has been for 2000 years because Jesus ordained that the gates of hell would not prevail against here.

You are making an assertion, again, that the RCC = the early church. This is questionable. I've provided reasoning that would challenge that notion considering the many different types of churches that existed, including 2 churches (the church of Thomas in India (Mar Thomas), and the Armenian Apostolic Church).

StealthRolex wrote: »

Trust goes hand in hand with obedience. Ask any pilot and air traffic controller. If you want to make sense of it you can but you must do the research if you are not will to take it on face value.
For the Immaculate Conception you could start here

If it's extra-Biblical, I would consider it to be treated with scepticism. It seems to involve an infinite loop of being born sinless, if Mary was born sinless, must her parents have been born sinless going back ad-infinitum. After all if we do that, the entire human race is sinless.

Of could God have intervened, and bore Jesus as sinless, even if his mother had sinned already, or made it so that Jesus was unaffected by the inclination to sin.

StealthRolex wrote: »

At the local level one can on some issues - but on matters of Faith, Morals, Doctrine Dogma etc you need to be a Cardinal at least if not Pope. Christ did not institute a democratic Church.

This would seem to be rules around the rules. I don't know about your claim that people shouldn't be more actively involved in their churches. Paul in the New Testament says that we should all play a role in Christ's body. I support equipping and allowing people to do that within the church, and to be a part of church committee, and to be involved in planning events.

Most people want to be a part of a church that they can be a genuine part of rather than a church that they just attend.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Because we discussed it does not make it stand or mean that I must accept your point of view for any other reference. The title may have changed but the Church did not - the Roman Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ. Like a tree there are branches - some closer to the main body than others and some that bear no fruit, fall off and die.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the trunk and the more I search the more evidence I find to support that.

I'm just asking you not to ignore the point.