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

[Dokimas]

Actually, you do! If it were not for the CC, you would have no way of knowing this.

Giving credit to the CC that belongs to the Holy Spirit.

But an anullment is not a divorce, and it is not related to money. It is about the conditions under which the couple united.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. I don’t see anything in the NT that states that it is okay to examine the reason or circumstance for a marriage and then if it doesn’t match up, call it as if it did not exist. Actually this is a tricky way around what Jesus and Paul said on the issue.

You are right, and the Church follows their example. The present decision of the Latin Rite to choose clergy from among those called to the celibate life is a discipline, and could be changed.

Then they have changed what Paul said. I’ve resently been accused of adding to the Bible. Ouch.

 

[Dokimas]

You seem to be confused, Doki. It is not possible to “mandate” celibacy. Celibacy in this context is a gift from God, and no human has control over that. Jesus said that those to whom the gift is given “should” receive it. It cannot be mandated. It can only be received.

I’m only confused if I misunderstood what someone said several or many posts back that cause me to respond. Or maybe you don’t understand that for the CC to tell their young seminarians that they must remain celebate to be a priest is mandating it.

The Church prefers to choose from among those who have received this gift from God.

They obviously make mistakes with their choices. They limit their choices. Too bad.

For some reason you think that the Church choosing from among those who are called to it is a “mandate”. Not sure where you get that. Is this coming from some anti-Catholic propoganda source?

A rose by any other name is a rose.

Paul was strongly in favor of celibacy, especially those who were serving the Church. That is one reason we know that marriage was not a requirement to serve. Modern American Evangelicals have gotten a very mixed up understanding on this point.

I never said that marriage is a requirement to serve. I think I have a pretty good handle on Paul’s teaching. He would have them not be married but did NOT forbid it.

I think this concept of the future is off the topic in this thread.

The verse was part of the link given that was trying to show why the CC only chooses celebate men (with few exception). I responded to the claim. That’s all. Again, context.

Suffice to say that God approves those who choose to dedicate themselves to HIs service, even refraining from marriage to devote themselves to Him.

And those who He calls and knows will be family men.

Is this why you think Catholics need to be evangelized? Because we affirm that celibacy is a gift from God?

We’re going along pretty good and then you throw in this. You think I don’t understand. It is you that continues to make false understandings of what I say. If you can’t understand me, how can I trust your understanding on anything?

Any protestant or catholic or for that matter any other person, who don’t know Jesus needs to really know Him as Lord and Savior. It is our priviledge to share the Gospel of Jesus with them in hopes they truly call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

BTW, why would I think that about the CC when Paul teaches the value of celebacy? He also realizes the sex drive and DOES NOT disqualify marraige from church leadership.

 

[Dokimas]

 

[Dokimas]

There is plenty of sexual sins from leaders of churches that allow marriage. I’d be a hypocrite to point a finger at the CC for that reason.

That being said, the CC does itself a disservice limiting its pool of pastoral candidates to only those who claim they’ve been called to celebacy, IMO.

 

[wmscott]

Can we be fair? Have you ever said ‘hey, I never thought about this in that way. Perhaps Doki’s understanding is correct’? No because that would mean the CC in not 100% correct and that can not be.

I, however, am able to, if I see that there’s a good Scriptural reason, change my understanding to that of the CC without being tied to a church’s understanding.​

I read most, if not all, the Bible verses given to support your understanding; not just yours but anyone’s verses that makes their point. I read very little of what others outside this formun believes about an issue.

We can be absolutely fair, but it is a two way street. The Catholic Church and I do not have a problem acknowledging the truth wherever it may be. The problem is you will not see any other truth except what you fallible see as a truth, you refuses to be corrected when you are wrong. You have stubbornly misinterpreted 1 Timothy 4 and by doing so you have misrepresented the Catholic Church and Catholics regarding marriage and fasting and have characterized us as being forced to fast or that fasting is wrong along with that we forbid marriage. You state “I, however, am able to, if I see that there’s a good Scriptural reason, change my understanding to that of the CC without being tied to a church’s understanding” and yet had you read what I provided to you in great detail. you would have come to understand that your interpretation was incorrect and needed to be corrected.

By all means read the Bible, amen to that, it is the Word of God, but you must know what it is telling you, know who it was written to, know why it was written, and know what the context is. It is not a collection of verses to be cherry pick to prove a point, it is a rich collection of books telling us many wonderful things. However, as with any good thing it can be misused.

Once more if you think that Catholics are being forced to fast and that we forbid marriage, you really need to read what I posted to you early on in posts 258, 259, & 260 starting on page 31 LINK

Please do not ignore this, I really want you to understand the fasting and marriage thing

 

[Dokimas]

We can be absolutely fair, but it is a two way street. The Catholic Church and I do not have a problem acknowledging the truth wherever it may be. The problem is you will not see any other truth except what you fallible see as a truth, you refuses to be corrected when you are wrong. You have stubbornly misinterpreted 1 Timothy 4 and by doing so you have misrepresented the Catholic Church and Catholics regarding marriage and fasting and have characterized us as being forced to fast or that fasting is wrong along with that we forbid marriage. You state “I, however, am able to, if I see that there’s a good Scriptural reason, change my understanding to that of the CC without being tied to a church’s understanding” and yet had you read what I provided to you in great detail. you would have come to understand that your interpretation was incorrect and needed to be corrected.

William, could you name one belief you or the CC have changed their minds about after study and discussion with non-catholic Christians?

I’ve changed some of my understanding after speaking to catholics. I remember a precious nun who helped me see miracles done by Jesus for what they were, miracles, not naturally occuring happenings.

It is not a collection of verses to be cherry pick to prove a point, … as with any good thing it can be misused.

Can we agree that cherry pickers should not throw cherry pits.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t understand your post or point.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed. It is like a proponent of “open marriages” pointing out that monogamy is at the heart of adultery and failed marriages. Ridiculous! They say, “See! Your marriages are falling apart because you won’t let them sleep around.” Just plain :whacky:

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed. It is like a proponent of “open marriages” pointing out that monogamy is at the heart of adultery and failed marriages. Ridiculous! They say, “See! Your marriages are falling apart because you won’t let them sleep around.” Just plain :whacky:

Agreed, for what ever it’s worth.

 

[wmscott]

William, could you name one belief you or the CC have changed their minds about after study and discussion with non-catholic Christians?

I’ve changed some of my understanding after speaking to catholics. I remember a precious nun who helped me see miracles done by Jesus for what they were, miracles, not naturally occuring happenings.

Can we agree that cherry pickers should not throw cherry pits.

Good question, I do not know perhaps there is someone here that can answer that questions. Now the following is just my opinion, and that is… since any truths found in non-Christian denominations came from the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church was entrusted with the Deposit of Faith by Christ, I really do not see how the non-Catholic faiths can come up with something new or previously hidden from the church other than what the Catholic Church and the Deposit of Faith already has.

However if you know the answer, please let me know what it is. I would like to be as informed as you are on the subject. I am by no means an expert.

I agree, no cherry pits. This is why I provided you with all of 1 Timothy 4 that you cited, put it into context, provided additional references to correct you misunderstanding, provided Church teaching, and you still either did not read it or you have, as now, avoided addressing it. This is why I assume that you are unwilling to be open to the truth.

 

[wanner47]

Wanner47

Yes, I've read the Church Fathers, many of them. Three points.

1. The Church Fathers who are recognized as the Church Fathers today agree generally with the Catholic Church because the rest were viewed as heretics and their works didn't survive in many cases.

If their works didn’t survive, how do you know this? What could be a reason for their works not surviving? Do you think the early Church had the authority to declare certain beliefs heretical? If not, who did?

2. There were various Church Fathers, among them Arius, Tertullian, Origen, etc., who were considered heretics but some of their works have survived. A number of heretic works by early church leaders have been found in fairly recent times.

Such as?

3. In reading the Church Fathers, I found that they were brilliant for their age, but their writings are full of scientific errors since they had poor telescopes and no microscopes. They also contain various superstitions that the Catholic Church has since minimized, such as demons causing disease, etc. True, there is exorcism, but I find this very controversial among rank-and-file Catholics.

Luckily, the purpose of the Church is not to teach science. And supersititions are not doctrine or dogma, so that point is moot. As for exorcism being “controversial”? Anyone who disbelieves in the reality of demons or demonic possession needs to read up on the subject. It’s not as prevalent as some believe, but it does exist.

 As I mentioned, in some sense St. Paul was the 'founder' of the Church, the great missionary apostle who established churches across much of the ancient world. His epistles bristle with theology, what the early Christians should believe. Yet, he doesn't once mention Mary in those letters. Isn't it reasonable to assume that if Mary was to be venerated as she is today that her name would be mentioned in at least one of those many epistles?

Christ was the founder of the Church, which was established at His death on the Cross and formally began its ministry at Pentecost.

The purpose of Paul’s letters were to instruct and inform new Christian churches that were struggling with various issues. Mary was not an issue, since she was still alive at the time and anyone that had questions about her could go right to the source.

  I'm not arguing against Catholicism. It seems to me that there is some evidence to support different opinions on a variety of issues, and instead of being so definitive and defensive and narrow in its doctrines the Church should accept different opinions as options as long as we believe in Christ and seek to love God and one another.

Sounds great on the surface, but if this truly works, why are there so many divisions among Protestants?

For example, I find it difficult to assume that Mary lived a sinless life. The Bible tells us that “all have sinned and come short…”-

Do you believe that newborn babies have sinned? What about those with Down’s Syndrome? Have they sinned as well?

I have a problem with - what is it? 10,000 saints, one for just about every vocation, condition, nation, need, etc. I doubt that Fr. Pio, now a canonized saint, belocated and levitated, among his many other miracles.

There may be 10,000 saints, but I don’t believe the church has canonized that many. Where are you getting your numbers?

What proof do you have that Saint Padre Pio was a fraud? Do you think the Church did not examine all available evidence during his canonization process? If so, what is your proof?

Accuse me of being influenced by science and reason, and maybe that’s my problem. I find that millions of others have the same problem, and the Church seems to move in the direction of narrowing its dogmae instead of providing more room for intellectual inquiry, freedom, and expression.

Which shows to me that you really don’t know how to do research all that well.

God gave us brains. I suspect that he is pleased when we use them to his glory. I certainly don’t believe we are to be punished by a just and merciful God because we stray from creeds and other traditions going back hundreds of years.

If you **knowingly **do so, while **knowing it’s wrong **to do so, then yes, we are to be punished for this. If one chooses to disobey God, He respects that choice but there are consequences He has set. If one knowingly disobeys God, knowing the consequences, all He does is respect our free will.

In the Apostles Creed, for example, we conclude by saying that “I believe in…the resurrection of the body.” In that context it means our bodies. Honestly, I believe in spiritual resurrection, the resurrection of the soul, but probably not of the body. A reasonable belief 2000 years ago, maybe, but not today - in my view. Does that mean I am some sort of rebellious heretic? Sounds more like a straight-jacket than a huge, diverse, catholic community.

Sounds to me you are just misinformed and ignorant about church teaching, and just need to do some research about why the Church teaches what it does about the bodily resurrection. This is a good start.

 

[wanner47]

Dokimas, have you read this article yet?

If so, what are your arguments against the evidence presented?

If not, why not?

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

Then maybe you need to try to be more clear in expressing what you believe.

That, and maybe not waste time trying to joke about stuff like someone else’s screen name.

I take it that you’re one of the “Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics” then?

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, have you read this article yet?

If so, what are your arguments against the evidence presented?

If not, why not?

I had not seen it.

Comments as I look through the article.

Was Matthew mistaken about what Jesus said? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake as He inspired Matthew?

As for Mark and Luke: did the Holy Spirit make a mistake in inspiring them or did He have a reason for leaving the part out here being discussed?

What about these verses:

1 Corinthians 7:
10 ¶ Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

A believer is to stay with the unbeliever UNLESS the unbeliever wants the divorce. Seems Paul says the believer is then not bound.

From your article on the 1 Cor 7 passages: “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.)”

I may be reading this incorrectly but it seems the article says it is okay for the believer to divorce a non-believer. That’s not what Paul is saying.

To be continued:

 

[Dokimas]

Cont.

Matthew 19:
3 ¶ The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at 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 then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

These verses were mentioned in the article.

In the society that Jesus lived, it was a man’s world. Women, for the most part, were nothing more than property.

I’m sure Jesus knew their hearts that if He gave them an excuse, the men that wanted a divorce would make up stories about their wives to be free from them.

BTW, Jesus did not always answer in a straight forward manner. Take His exchange with the man who called Him good. Jesus said ‘why call Me good? There is non good but God?’ Was He saying He wasn’t good? Sounds like He was. NO, NO, NO. Look closely; Jesus was saying of Himself, ‘I am good and that is why I’m God.’​

BTW, it is divorce that is not permitted in these verses or remarriage?

That reminds me: the CC allows annulments. That’s a fancy term that’s not supposed to be divorce, but it is divorce no matter what one calls it. Jesus said a man is ‘married’ to the woman he has sex with. If sex took place, in God’s eyes, he’s married, thus should not be remarried.

 

[Dokimas]

Then maybe you need to try to be more clear in expressing what you believe.

That, and maybe not waste time trying to joke about stuff like someone else’s screen name.

I take it that you’re one of the “Protestants who feel it is necessary to proselytize Catholics” then?

As you got it wrong about my feeble attempt to tease you, you’ve got it wrong about me being here to proselytize. I’ve made that fact VERY, VERY clear and have been backed by some regular catholics on CAF.

 

[wanner47]

Dokimas, you need to read the entire article, not skim it. Your objections were answered in it:

One possibility is that the exceptive clauses are there as an illustration of the precision demanded in rabbinic logic. In other words, the clauses indicate that if one divorces an adulterous wife, one isn’t making her into an adulteress because she already is one. That doesn’t mean that she’s free to remarry; it just means that you aren’t forcing her into an adulterous situation if you divorce her.

Another possibility is that the exceptive clauses are a way of avoiding altogether the subject of an unchaste spouse. In Judaism around this period, there was a debate between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai over the circumstances in which one could divorce. The Hillelites argued that it could be essentially for any reason, while the Shammaites argued it could be only for adultery. The exceptive clauses could be a way of avoiding this debate. The Greek grammar allows the passage to be understood roughly in this sense: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another—I’m not going into the subject of unchastity—commits adultery.”

A third possibility is that the Greek term used for “unchastity”— porneia—is being used in a special sense. For example, some have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated.

Today, with the tradition of the wedding night, it is highly unlikely a spouse could be unfaithful between the marriage ceremony and the consummation. However, in Jesus’ time it was customary for a couple to be legally married for about a year before the consummation. The bride continued to live with her family while the husband prepared their home. At the end of this time there was the “fetching of the bride” ceremony, where the groom took her back to his own home with family and friends accompanying them. Then, during the wedding party, the couple would retire and consummate their union. Clearly, within this long time frame unchastity was possible on the part of one of the spouses.

Why would Matthew be the only Evangelist to point out the possibility of dissolving such unions? Because he is the only one who mentions that, when Mary was discovered to be with child by the Holy Spirit, Joseph had in mind to divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19). He alone would seem to have a reason to clarify why Joseph’s planned course of action was legitimate, given what Jesus said later regarding marriage.

Others have interpreted the Greek term used for “unchastity”— porneia—as a reference to incest, the idea being that divorce and remarriage is permissible in the case of incestuous marriages, since the marriage was never valid to begin with. If this is correct, then we have the principle that underlies modern annulments: Those who are not validly married are free to contract it.

Advocates of this interpretation point out that porneia is not the usual Greek term for adultery. Indeed, in the passages cited above, Jesus uses the term for adultery (moicheia) and does not identify it with porneia. These advocates point out also that many peoples in the eastern-Mediterranean region had marriage practices that allowed unions forbidden by Leviticus 18. This caused problems when individuals wanted to convert to Judaism and Christianity. Did they have to leave their spouses? Matthew, writing in an eastern-Mediterranean context, would have had reason to insert a clarification to prevent such converts from using the unqualified statement as justification for staying with their current spouses.

The idea that porneia is being used in this narrow way is suggested by two other biblical passages. In Acts 15:29, it is proposed that, to avoid offending Jewish believers, Gentile converts abstain from eating idol meat, blood, strangled animals, and from porneia. These objections are often regarded as being based directly on Leviticus 17–18, where the same things are prohibited in the same order.

The second passage is 1 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul applies the word porneia to the case of a man who has married his stepmother—a case forbidden by Leviticus 18:8. These considerations make it reasonable to assume that porneia is being used in the exceptive clauses to refer to incestuous unions.

Whichever above arguments you find convincing, it is clearly false that Jesus meant to allow divorce and remarriage when one party has committed adultery. Matthew 19:9 has often been read against the context of the Hillel-Shammai debate and interpreted to mean that Jesus was simply siding with Shammai in permitting divorce only for adultery. But this does not square with two key points in the text.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

If that is true Roy, then why did Our Lord intentionally build His Church in Matthew 16? It would make no sense.

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.

Note that it was by their works that they were judged, which certainly refutes the errant doctrine that faith alone is all that is needed for salvation.

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.

Doctrine divides alright…divides truth from error.

Hebrews 4:12] For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

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!

A worthy prayer, and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church in the Catechism.

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.

Really? Is that why Our Lord said the following?
Matthew 10:22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

Mark 13:13 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

Luke 21:17 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, you need to read the entire article, not skim it. Your objections were answered in it:

I’m printing it out and will read it more closely. However, it talk of ‘possibilities’ which means these are not definites.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Church_Militant]

Too bad young men in catholic seminaries studying for the priesthood can’t experience this, not because they have to, but because they may want to chose to be married. That choice is taken away, if they want to be a priest, hoping one day to be a bishop and maybe a cardinal.

This is hogwash. As I’ve already shown, Our Lord called some to celibacy and yet you decry the one church that allows men to follow Him in that calling. Relinquishing heir rights is an act of following their Lord.

Christ had “the right” to rule the world (see Matthew 26:53) and yet did not for the sake of His kingdom. There are other rites within the Catholic Church that do allow married clergy, so that option is always open to them.

I suspect that most concern themselves much less with aspirations to be bishops and cardinals and more to serve their risen Lord.