A question for some Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics

[Dokimas]

You do know the the 3 levels of saints:
Church Militant: you, me and all Christians
Church Triumphant: those in heaven with our Lord
Church Suffering: those being purged of impurities from sin after death

So that is the reason for his name, not that he is being militant towards you but rather against evil.

I guess you didn’t understand the ‘’ which means I was teasing.

 

[KathleenGee]

There was a 10 year gap of communication between myself and a priest friend. He contacted me last year, back in his own province and asked me to see his webpage. I could not believe all that he did for others…he is needed by so many. If he were married, he could not have done so much with the integrity of faith that he has.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not need the CC to tell me that divorce is wrong. Jesus told us NOT to get a divorce (except for infidelity).

Indeed you do! For you would not know what Jesus said in Matthew about divorce if it were not for the CC’s discernment that the book of Matthew was inspired, but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas was not.

Also, the “except for infidelity” is not correct. Else everyone who wants a divorce would simply cheat on their spouse and then say, “Hey, Jesus said we’re ok to divorce, but if I had remained faithful to my spouse I couldn’t divorce her!” :whacky:

 

[Church_Militant]

Take a look at the difference in the time of your post and mine: 3 minutes. Is it possible that I did not see you post because I was thinking about the one I was writing???

I guess you being so militant toward me my be a bit premature.

:yawn:
Same old same old…You don’t even know what my screen name means.

Here…look it up…

It may signify the whole body of the faithful

, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth, heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. but those, too, whether in It basically just means each of us ordinary believers who do battle with the world, the flesh, an the devil on our way our final reward.

 

[Church_Militant]

Matthew 19:
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
12 "For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

Could you please highlight above where Jesus mandated celebacy? Thank you.

Really? You can’t see that? So how can you oppose celibacy just because you and your friends can’t hack it? Jesus said it is given to some and says that it is better. You’ll have to take your argument up with Him.

1 Corinthians 7:
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Could you highlight above where Paul mandated celebacy? Thank you.

Paul makes it pretty clear that the concession is marriage. Based upon this passage it implies that those who oppose celibacy are the weak ones and have no calling to it. The mandate is there from the lips of Jesus Himself. Paul obviously got it, so how do you miss it then?

Revelation 14:
1 ¶ Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.
3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Could you show me where this verse applies to anyone but the 144,000 male Jews during a future time in human history, most likely during the Great Tribulation and their job is to witness to fellow Jews.

It doesn’t matter. They will be celibates and yet you argue against something that God Himself lauds as “firstfruits to God and to the Lamb”. If it was such a bad thing then why does God approve it with regard to these, as well as Our Lord plainly telling us that it is better and that those who are called to it should embrace it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Dokimas:

Please kindly show me in Scripture where Jesus **mandated **Christian worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath.

You won’t find JESUS saying anything about us worshipping on “The Lord’s Day” because the decision was made by the apostles under the authority they received to ‘bind and loose’.

You may say, "the apostles did not mandate celibacy.’ Perhaps they did at a later date, perhaps not. But the apostles also did not ‘mandate’ that priesthood was always and only to be for men, married or single. They had, and their successors continue to have, the power to impose whatever discipline they choose. You still haven’t bothered to answer my “make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom”. . .

**Who is Jesus speaking of here? **

Where exactly in Scripture does it say, “Priests and bishops may not be required to be celibate men. They must always have the option to marry?”

 

[eucharisteo]

I guess you didn’t understand the ‘’ which means I was teasing.

wasn’t sure. Speaking of militant pray for SSG Michael Davis as he returns to Iraq from R&R with his wife and 3 boys. This is is 4th tour in 10 years. I told him I would pray for him. But I’d like to pull in more prayers for this man as well as our continued prayer for those serving in the armed forces, especially in dangerous parts of the world. I met several soldiers today at the airport visiting with a priest friend of my, our children’s godfather.

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed you do! For you would not know what Jesus said in Matthew about divorce if it were not for the CC’s discernment that the book of Matthew was inspired, but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas was not.

Also, the “except for infidelity” is not correct. Else everyone who wants a divorce would simply cheat on their spouse and then say, “Hey, Jesus said we’re ok to divorce, but if I had remained faithful to my spouse I couldn’t divorce her!” :whacky:

Wrong understanding on your part. It’s the innocent party that can get a divorce without commiting adultery. The guilty party has sinned. They don’t get to choose divorce according to this verse.​

Oh, while I’m thinking about it, you sure do give the CC the stature of the Holy Spirit in telling us that it’s the church that is responsible for the Bible that tells me not to commit adultery.

BTW, the CC is not responsible for the OT. It told us not to commit adultery long before Trent.

 

[Dokimas]

:yawn:
Same old same old…You don’t even know what my screen name means.

Here…look it up…
It basically just means each of us ordinary believers who do battle with the world, the flesh, an the devil on our way our final reward.

Two things:

1. **I WAS TEASING **you.
2. You didn’t answer my question. You jumped all over me for nothing!!! IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Really? You can’t see that? So how can you oppose celibacy just because you and your friends can’t hack it? Jesus said it is given to some and says that it is better. You’ll have to take your argument up with Him.
Paul makes it pretty clear that the concession is marriage. Based upon this passage it implies that those who oppose celibacy are the weak ones and have no calling to it. The mandate is there from the lips of Jesus Himself. Paul obviously got it, so how do you miss it then?

It doesn’t matter. They will be celibates and yet you argue against something that God Himself lauds as “firstfruits to God and to the Lamb”. If it was such a bad thing then why does God approve it with regard to these, as well as Our Lord plainly telling us that it is better and that those who are called to it should embrace it.

Believe what you want about my understand of these verses and what these verses mean. It matters not to me. I do see we have little room for dicussion. So be it if that’s the way you want it. I tire of discussing with those who tell me what I’m saying and are **very, very, very **far off what I am saying.

 

[Dokimas]

Dear Dokimas:

Please kindly show me in Scripture where Jesus **mandated **Christian worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath.

You won’t find JESUS saying anything about us worshipping on “The Lord’s Day” because the decision was made by the apostles under the authority they received to ‘bind and loose’.

You may say, "the apostles did not mandate celibacy.’ Perhaps they did at a later date, perhaps not. But the apostles also did not ‘mandate’ that priesthood was always and only to be for men, married or single. They had, and their successors continue to have, the power to impose whatever discipline they choose. You still haven’t bothered to answer my “make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom”. . .

**Who is Jesus speaking of here? **​

Where exactly in Scripture does it say, “Priests and bishops may not be required to be celibate men. They must always have the option to marry?”

I’d love to discuss you questions with you but I don’t think you questions are in context of the discussion I’m having. I was told that Jesus, Paul and John mandated church leaders to be celebate. I was directed to the verses above. I responded by asking to be shown where the mandated is.

I have NEVER said pastors or bishops MUST be married. I has shown the verse from Paul where he says they should only have one wife. My point has ALWAYS been that a church has no Biblical grounds to mandate celebacy (and let me add marriage) for their leaders.

I’m sure Jesus is in favor of our worship each and ever day. He said worship is not restricted to a place but to an attitude: in spirit and in truth. I can worship God every moment of every day no matter where I am. That is my calling knowing Jesus will never leave me nor forsake me (Hebrews 13:5).

John 4:
20 “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

 

[PRmerger]

Wrong understanding on your part. It’s the innocent party that can get a divorce without commiting adultery. The guilty party has sinned. They don’t get to choose divorce according to this verse.

That’s adding to Scripture, Dokimas. It does not say that the innocent party can get a divorce but that the guilty party cannot.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, while I’m thinking about it, you sure do give the CC the stature of the Holy Spirit in telling us that it’s the church that is responsible for the Bible that tells me not to commit adultery.

Yes, it is indeed the Holy Spirit which inspired the CC to tell you that the Gospel of Matthew is canonical and the Gospel of Thomas is not. Not sure what you’re arguing here–we both agree that it’s the Holy Spirit, yes?

BTW, the CC is not responsible for the OT. It told us not to commit adultery long before Trent.

You would not know that the OT is inspired, if the early Christians had not accepted its canonical status. What if there were early Christians who proposed we only use inspired texts that talk about Jesus? That certainly was an option for them. But, it was the CC that insisted we keep the OT and included it in our Bibles.

I mean, really, how would you know that Genesis is inspired?

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t read all the postings, but here is the opinion of one person who comes from a mixed-faith background - paternal, Catholic heritage, maternal, Protestant.

 God doesn't give a hoot whether we are Catholic or Protestant. When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said love God and one another. He illustrated that with the parable of the 'heretic' Good Samaritan, from a dissendent religious groups despised by the religious establishment of the day. 

 And then in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus tells of the final judgment, when the sheep are separated from the goats. The questions asked have nothing to do with doctrine or church affiliation. "I was hungry and you gave me meat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you gave me shelter..." etc. Those are the ones that were welcomed into the eternal kingdom.

 I know this runs counter to most CAF discussions, but doctrine divides, while good Christians are united when it comes to the two great commandments. Why don't we agree on those and then 'agree to disagree' on those matters that cause conflict and misunderstanding. Frankly, I don't think the human mind even begins to understand the great mysteries of this mammoth and marvelous universe anyway. For hundreds of years Christianity taught a number of concepts that were proven wrong by modern science, though the Church refuses to admit it. It finally got around to honoring Galileo and Copernicus. I recall reading the Church Fathers, brilliant men, but also men who believed what was popular thought then but we know is wrong in this time of powerful telescopes and microscopes. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all God's children of every creed, color and country. What a scandal that religion results in so many barriers when it should serve as a bridge!

  Christianity should unite people and not cause such division. Theological debate is fine as long as we recognize that none of us has the mental capacity to understand the marvels of this amazing world we live in.

 

[wanner47]

I haven’t read all the postings, but here is the opinion of one person who comes from a mixed-faith background - paternal, Catholic heritage, maternal, Protestant.

 God doesn't give a hoot whether we are Catholic or Protestant. When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said love God and one another. He illustrated that with the parable of the 'heretic' Good Samaritan, from a dissendent religious groups despised by the religious establishment of the day. 

 And then in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus tells of the final judgment, when the sheep are separated from the goats. The questions asked have nothing to do with doctrine or church affiliation. "I was hungry and you gave me meat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you gave me shelter..." etc. Those are the ones that were welcomed into the eternal kingdom.

 I know this runs counter to most CAF discussions, but doctrine divides, while good Christians are united when it comes to the two great commandments. Why don't we agree on those and then 'agree to disagree' on those matters that cause conflict and misunderstanding. Frankly, I don't think the human mind even begins to understand the great mysteries of this mammoth and marvelous universe anyway. For hundreds of years Christianity taught a number of concepts that were proven wrong by modern science, though the Church refuses to admit it. It finally got around to honoring Galileo and Copernicus. I recall reading the Church Fathers, brilliant men, but also men who believed what was popular thought then but we know is wrong in this time of powerful telescopes and microscopes. 

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox - and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all God's children of every creed, color and country. What a scandal that religion results in so many barriers when it should serve as a bridge!

  Christianity should unite people and not cause such division. Theological debate is fine as long as we recognize that none of us has the mental capacity to understand the marvels of this amazing world we live in.

But if Jesus clearly establishes a Church, and a Christian refuses to be in or follow that Church, but obeys God in everything else… is that true obedience to Christ? Why would you want to follow Christ in everything *except *for belonging to the Church that He established?

 

[PRmerger]

But if Jesus clearly establishes a Church, and a Christian refuses to be in or follow that Church, but obeys God in everything else… is that true obedience to Christ? Why would you want to follow Christ in everything *except *for belonging to the Church that He established?

Yes! And we are to love God with our entire heart, soul, strength and MIND. Loving God with our MIND means we need to contemplate whats been revealed and come to an understanding of what’s TRUE and what’s FALSE. That’s what the CAFs is all about–digesting and discussing how to know God with our MIND.

[SIGN1]Saying that it really doesn’t matter what we believe, as long as we love God with our heart runs contrary to Scripture.[/SIGN1]

 

[wmscott]

***AGAIN ***with the 1 Timothy 4 citation. Why did you not read my post explaining this in detail. are you so closed to the truth that you refues to see any view point but your own. this is the problemn when repeated again for your edification. This is the problem when you have those out there that continually apply their personal interpretations to Sacred Scripture and really have no clue as to what they are interpreting. This is why some non-Catholics get the 30K+ different Protestant churches thrown at them. This is a classic case, you cite 1 Timothy 4 totally out of context and totally incorrect. Go two blocks down the street to (fill in the blank) Church and get something entirely different. You cannot even agree amongst yourselves what Sacred Scripture is supposed to say.

So again and for your edification, I have taken an excerpt of my post so that you can see and hopefully understand the error in you interpretation and argument. It is OK you are allowed to admit a mistake.

1 Timothy 4

1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions
2 through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3 They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving,

Now let’s look at the footnotes associated with this citation:

[1-5] Doctrinal deviations from the true Christian message within the church have been prophesied, though the origin of the prophecy is not specified (1 Tim 4:1-2); cf Acts 20:29-30. The letter warns against a false asceticism that prohibits marriage and regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation (1 Tim 4:3).

Further, let’s understand the definition of asceticism:

as•cet•i•cism
–noun

1. the manner of life, practices, or principles of an ascetic.
2. the doctrine that a person can attain a high spiritual and moral state by practicing self-denial, self-mortification, and the like.
3. rigorous self-denial; extreme abstinence; austerity.

Now let’s look at this in context as explained in the Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary:

Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, &c. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life;

So it appears that Dokimas is going to continue to ignore my questions and posts to him. I have posted to you a couple of times showing you the mistakes you are making with 1 Timothy 4, and by having a mistaken interpretation of that reference, you now have a completely mistaken perception of the CC, Catholic practices, and the Catholic faith with regards to marriage and fasting. So I have to assume that since this is the case, is it because you feel that you have a need to show us Catholics just how wrong we are and that you are the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture. That your interpretations are the correct ones and no one else is able to correctly interpret them? Or is it because when you are presented with your completely misconstrued and misinterpretations of Sacred Scripture, your defense is to totally ignore the one correcting you? So which one is it? What I see a lot of, is you continually repeating the same misinterpretation over and over thinking that if you repeat your misinterpretation long enough it will become the truth. So be it… continue to live a life of half truths and skewed perceptions. You really need to go back to page 31 (LINK) and read posts 458, 459, & 460. These posts directly, in documented fashion, deal with your false assertions of marriage and fasting within the CC, that you have totally misrepresented here. Otherwise all you have to contribute is fallacy, misinterpretation, and falsehoods about the CC.

So the ball is in your court… have an open mind and heart to the truth, or continue in delusion.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s adding to Scripture, Dokimas. It does not say that the innocent party can get a divorce but that the guilty party cannot.

Matthew 5:32 “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

These are the Words of Jesus.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, it is indeed the Holy Spirit which inspired the CC to tell you that the Gospel of Matthew is canonical and the Gospel of Thomas is not. Not sure what you’re arguing here–we both agree that it’s the Holy Spirit, yes?

You would not know that the OT is inspired, if the early Christians had not accepted its canonical status. What if there were early Christians who proposed we only use inspired texts that talk about Jesus? That certainly was an option for them. But, it was the CC that insisted we keep the OT and included it in our Bibles.

I mean, really, how would you know that Genesis is inspired?

Thank you for your opinion. I don’t have it in me to put any emotion into discussing this.

 

[wanner47]

Matthew 5:32 “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

These are the Words of Jesus.

However, other Scripture passages seem to disagree with Jesus. How can this be?

There are a number of problems with this. First among them is that the exceptive clauses do not appear in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says only, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Likewise, Luke 16:18 says, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

This is striking. How could Mark and Luke, writing for the Greco-Roman world, omit the one, glaring exception that allows remarriage after divorce? Adultery and sexual sins were rampant in the Roman culture. Mark and Luke would have realized that their audiences needed to know about the exception even more than the Jewish audience for which Matthew wrote.

The exceptive clauses also do not appear in Paul’s discussion of divorce and remarriage. In Romans 7:2–3, he writes that “a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

And in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39, he writes, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Paul was dealing also with a Greco-Roman audience, and he also does not make an exception for unfaithfulness or sexual sin. (The only exception he does make is for the dissolution of a non-sacramental marriage when one spouse has converted to Christianity [1 Cor. 7:12, 15]—what we know today as the Pauline privilege—but that is a different matter.)

Because the exceptive clauses occur only in Matthew’s Gospel—one written for a Jewish audience—it suggests that they reflect some issue of particular concern to Jews.

(source)

I highly recommend you read the article in its entirety. It explains why other Scripture passages seemingly contradict Jesus if read with a Protestant understanding, but why these passages are in harmony if the words involved are translated correctly.