About the keys that were given to Peter in Matthew

[Pax]

The real issue here is that the Catholic church increasingly incorporated asceticism into its doctrines throughout the ages, and that’s all this is: a bunch of dudes who, for the most part, don’t have sex, have never been married, and have never been fathers telling the rest of the world how to have sex, be married, and be fathers.

You need to re-examine this especially by way of scripture. The “bunch of dudes” that you refer to happen to be in some rather excellent Christian company. Our Lord and Savior Jesus was never married and did not have sex and neither did the apostle Paul. Both have some wonderful things to say on the subject that are diametrically opposed to your contentions. I will assume for the moment that you do not disagree with either of them being in a position to comment on sex and marriage even though they were celibate.

Jesus gave the apostles and their successors the power to bind and loose. Thus the Church has the authority to establish or relax the discipline of celibacy among the clergy. Jesus praised celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12. The apostle Paul also preferred celibacy to marriage. In 1 Cor 7:27-34 he says, “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage . . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.” Finally, Paul concludes his instructions on this subject by saying in verse 38 that “He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better"

Celibacy is not mandatory and the Church does not forbid marriage. No one is forced to become a priest. Moreover, only the Western right of the Catholic Church requires that priests be celibate. The Eastern right of the Catholic Church allows priests to marry, but selects celibate men to the office of bishop. Celibacy is a charism and those that accept it do so by the grace of God.

The idea that celibacy will lead to horrible impurity is simply untrue and unbiblical as evidenced by the aforementioned quotations.

A great book for you to read is Christopher West’s The Good News about Sex and Marriage.

Please be advised that I have not intended to be uncharitable. If my disagreements have come across in that way then I apologize and will try to be more diplomatic.

 

[Pax]

The issue of aesceticism is another one that I can show from scripture. The practices within the Church did not “creep in” by some non-Christian mechanism. If you need me to go through the scriptural support for this I can do so. Personally, I think that the Catholic Church is in many ways rather relaxed and layed back in this area as opposed to the practices of the Jews and early Christians. I can give the scriptural and historical underpinnings for my opinion if you need it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matthew, 3, 1-5

1 In those days John the Baptist appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea
2 (and) saying, “Repent, 3 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”
3 It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said: “A voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.’”
5 **John wore clothing made of camel’s hair and had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. **

(My emphasis.)

John was an ascetic.

 

[DCD]

Are you kidding me? Someone predicts women will be treated as sexual objects and regularly participate in abortions, pornography, and sexual immorality, and you call this a prophecy? I’m sorry, but that is laughable. Abortions, porn, sexual immorality, and disrespect for women have been going on for long before there was a Catholic church to condemn it. Abortions were performed by the ancients by bounding a woman’s stomach or by taking certain drugs. Porn and prostitution are also nothing new, it’s just that in our media-based society, people are more likely to realize that it goes on. I don’t think the frequency of immorality has changed much at all - just the fact that now we know about it when it happens because of the media - e.g. Elliot Spitzer.

For the record, I don’t disagree that abortions, birth control pills that are essentially abortificants, sex outside marriage, and immorality/impurity in general are all grevious sins. The problem is the church’s view on marriage/sex/procreation. There’s nothing in the Bible that says sex for something other than procreation, or methods of reducing the possibility of procreation are wrong. In any case, the “old fashioned” rythm method is no different than using a physical barrier. They do not remove the possibility of pregnancy, just lessen the probability of one intentionally, just like the rythm method intentionally decreases the liklihood of pregnancy.

The real issue here is that the Catholic church increasingly incorporated asceticism into its doctrines throughout the ages, and that’s all this is: a bunch of dudes who, for the most part, don’t have sex, have never been married, and have never been fathers telling the rest of the world how to have sex, be married, and be fathers. That fact of the matter is that (outside of the destruction of a life) the Scriptures are silent on contraception. Where the Bible is silent, conscience takes over. Abortions, abortificant drugs and/or physical measures are immoral and go against God’s Law. There is nothing wrong with methods of contraception that do not violate the Scriptures.

ckempston,

Are you a bible only christian? Maybe I misunderstood some previous posts of yours.

Peace,
David

 

[po18guy]

That fact of the matter is that (outside of the destruction of a life) the Scriptures are silent on contraception. Where the Bible is silent, conscience takes over. Abortions, abortificant drugs and/or physical measures are immoral and go against God’s Law. There is nothing wrong with methods of contraception that do not violate the Scriptures.

All methods of contraception violate, not only scripture, but God’s law for man. After all they are one and the same, right? OK, which came first in America? Contraception or abortion? Which one, in it’s lie, and in its failure, leads automatically to the other out of “need” once the contraception failed?

Is holiness a matter of conforming faith to culture, or do we have it backward?

Christ’s peace.

 

[ckempston]

You are still wrong about what I said, and I implied nothing of the sort.

The facts are simple. Peter never taught anything in error, and neither did Paul. The gambit that you are pursuing is a total error. Peter behaved hypocritically. This is completely different from teaching doctrinal error. If you are unable to make this distinction then I suggest further study.

Please show me in scripture where it says that either Peter or Paul gave an erroneous teaching.

“How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

You don’t force someone simply through a bad example or hypocrisy. Clearly, Peter was guilty of more than just hypocrisy. Peter WAS guilty of hypocrisy - he lived like a Gentile, though he was Jew. He was also guilty of incorrect teaching - he “forced” Gentiles to live like Jews when the Jews were around. You don’t force people by bad example.

In any case, Peter’s example/teaching does not contradict the Catholic understanding of Papal Infallability.

Sorry, got a little carried away with that statement. The story obviously involves contraception, it’s just that contraception is not the main problem, nor do I believe that’s why he was killed. Onan is an isolated story in the Old Testament. No one else is ever killed for spilling seed, nor is it condemned elsewhere. The issue here is leviate marriage. Unfortunately, most laws about redemption are after the fact here, but what they do say is that if a brother refuses to redeem his brother’s wife, there is an appropriate ceremony for freeing her to marry someone else (Deut 25).

Genesis 38:8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.

The problem with Onan was the combination of issues, and his heart in thinking he could act deceitfully:

1. He was supposed to act as redeemer for his brother’s widow, though:
2. He could have gotten out of it, presumably, by following the Deut 25 ceremony.
3. He accepted the responsibility (at least in front of Judah - here’s the deceit)
4. He went so far as to actually have intercourse with Tamar
5. Although he “took advantage” he tried to get away with not having offspring for his brother (because the offspring would not be his) by spilling of his seed (again, presumably, deceitfully).

How they found out he did this, who knows? Prophet, maybe? Anyway, the problem is not the spilling of the seed, but the combination of issues above.

As if that’s my position is not convincing enough, Judah, in the same chapter, has sex with what he thinks is a prostitute (coitus interruptus apparently carries a penalty of death, but sleeping with a prostitute is OK). He obviously didn’t expect any children from this union, so the logical assumption is that he figured she was using some sort of contraception. He ends up impregnating Tamar, and when she’s found to be pregnant because of prostitution, the punishment he suggests is burning her to death (death for other than capital crimes was pretty common, apparently, and prostitution was also OK, so long as the woman was not in your family). To use anything in this chapter to support God’s view of the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of life, and His intention for sex is laughable. What about the innocent life in Tamar’s belly? Judah was ready to end that life, and hers, without any hesitation or thought for God’s views.

I reiterate - the problem here is the cultural norm of kinsman redeemers, the law for releasing a widow to marry outside the family, and Onan’s deceitful treatment of the whole matter - those are the reasons Onan was struck down, not simply because he spilled his seed. The actual act of spilling the seed is peripheral in and of itself, and this chapter cannot be used in any way shape or form to support the sanctity of marriage, sex between husband and wife, or the sanctity of unborn life.

 

[NotWorthy]

As if that’s my position is not convincing enough, Judah, in the same chapter, has sex with what he thinks is a prostitute (coitus interruptus apparently carries a penalty of death, but sleeping with a prostitute is OK). He obviously didn’t expect any children from this union, so the logical assumption is that he figured she was using some sort of contraception. He ends up impregnating Tamar, and when she’s found to be pregnant because of prostitution, the punishment he suggests is burning her to death (death for other than capital crimes was pretty common, apparently, and prostitution was also OK, so long as the woman was not in your family). To use anything in this chapter to support God’s view of the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of life, and His intention for sex is laughable. What about the innocent life in Tamar’s belly? Judah was ready to end that life, and hers, without any hesitation or thought for God’s views.

I reiterate - the problem here is the cultural norm of kinsman redeemers, the law for releasing a widow to marry outside the family, and Onan’s deceitful treatment of the whole matter - those are the reasons Onan was struck down, not simply because he spilled his seed. The actual act of spilling the seed is peripheral in and of itself, and this chapter cannot be used in any way shape or form to support the sanctity of marriage, sex between husband and wife, or the sanctity of unborn life.

Ahhhh, thus speaketh Pope ckempston… This is your interpretation my friend.

But you see, every Christian Faith disagreed with your interpretation until the 1930’s. Then, 99% of them changed over the next few decades.

Now, was the Holy Spirit silent on this matter for millenia, then decided to visit each faith one by one over a few generations to convince them that your interpretation is correct?

Or did public pressure convince various church leaders to give up on this doctrine or risk losing members who felt that their church was invading the privacy of their bedrooms…

 

[ckempston]

You need to re-examine this especially by way of scripture. The “bunch of dudes” that you refer to happen to be in some rather excellent Christian company. Our Lord and Savior Jesus was never married and did not have sex and neither did the apostle Paul. Both have some wonderful things to say on the subject that are diametrically opposed to your contentions. I will assume for the moment that you do not disagree with either of them being in a position to comment on sex and marriage even though they were celibate.

Well, Jesus was like, God, or something, wasn’t he? All-knowing? And Paul was inspired. They get a pass. Come on.

Jesus gave the apostles and their successors the power to bind and loose. Thus the Church has the authority to establish or relax the discipline of celibacy among the clergy. Jesus praised celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12. The apostle Paul also preferred celibacy to marriage. In 1 Cor 7:27-34 he says, “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage . . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.” Finally, Paul concludes his instructions on this subject by saying in verse 38 that “He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better"

You claim that Jesus said successors have the power to bind and loose (he didn’t, you simply infer that, though your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow, i.e. it is not deductive). I’ve already demonstrated that Peter’s successors do not have all of his abilities or all of his authority. So, your inference fails on at least some points. It could also be argued that Paul’s preference for celibacy was, in part, due to his expectation of an imminent return of Christ. If we were all celibate, the church wouldn’t last long.

Celibacy is not mandatory and the Church does not forbid marriage. No one is forced to become a priest. Moreover, only the Western right of the Catholic Church requires that priests be celibate. The Eastern right of the Catholic Church allows priests to marry, but selects celibate men to the office of bishop. Celibacy is a charism and those that accept it do so by the grace of God.

Celibacy is practically mandatory if you cannot risk having sex with your spouse without bringing a child into the world. After 35-40, this becomes increasingly dangerous for women. My wife had two fairly difficult pregnancies, and while we may have one more child, we haven’t made that decision yet, but I wouldn’t put her in danger by making her have 15 babies on the whim of a church’s over-zealous view of sex that isn’t even supported by its proof texts.

Peter had a wife, or at least had the right to have one, as did Paul. Catholic practices “go beyond what is written” a bit too much for my taste. If the Prince of the Apostles had the right to have a wife, so should the Pope and every Priest in the world.

The idea that celibacy will lead to horrible impurity is simply untrue and unbiblical as evidenced by the aforementioned quotations.

That sounds great, except for reality severely disagrees with you. I have someone in my family that was molested by a Catholic priest. If this priest didn’t get his corrupted view of right and wrong from the Catholic system where did he get it? This was not an isolated incident as everyone here knows very well. It’s probably been pandemic for centuries. Why didn’t any foresighted Catholic saints prophesy about that so it could be prevented?

Paul also says if you struggle with lust, to marry. You’re presenting a very one-sided view of what Paul says about marriage. Guess that doesn’t apply to Western Rite Catholic Priests.

A great book for you to read is Christopher West’s The Good News about Sex and Marriage.

My marriage is quite wonderful, but maybe I’ll pick that up.

Please be advised that I have not intended to be uncharitable. If my disagreements have come across in that way then I apologize and will try to be more diplomatic.

Thanks for the friendly reminder. I find it difficult in these types of discussions to always stay charitable, but disagreement doesn’t mean there is a lack of charity. I haven’t been offended by what anybody has said (so far).

 

[ckempston]

ckempston,

Are you a bible only christian? Maybe I misunderstood some previous posts of yours.

Peace,
David

My views can’t be summed up in a single sentence. I’m not a “sola scripturist” if that’s what you’re asking. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

 

[ckempston]

Ahhhh, thus speaketh Pope ckempston… This is your interpretation my friend.

If my interpretation is wrong, feel free to propose your own.

But you see, every Christian Faith disagreed with your interpretation until the 1930’s. Then, 99% of them changed over the next few decades.

Now, was the Holy Spirit silent on this matter for millenia, then decided to visit each faith one by one over a few generations to convince them that your interpretation is correct?

Or did public pressure convince various church leaders to give up on this doctrine or risk losing members who felt that their church was invading the privacy of their bedrooms…

Let’s get one thing straight - God is right, whether I am in agreement or not, OR whether you and the Catholic church are in agreement or not. Ad populum is fallacy, by the way.

And nice try on the appeal to ridicule too. Here are the facts - in the same chapter that the Catholic church claims explicitly condemns contraception and affirms the sanctity of life and marriage we have: Judah sleeping with a prostitute, Judah prepared to kill his daughter-in-law for prostituation (he apparently wasn’t too quick in the uptake), who also happens to be his daughter-in-law (he doesn’t realize he’s the one who impregnated her when he says to kill her), AND said “prostitute” is pregnant with an innocent life in her womb.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, Jesus was like, God, or something, wasn’t he? All-knowing? And Paul was inspired. They get a pass. Come on.

And what was Paul’s thoughts no celibacy?

You claim that Jesus said successors have the power to bind and loose (he didn’t, you simply infer that, though your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow, i.e. it is not deductive). I’ve already demonstrated that Peter’s successors do not have all of his abilities or all of his authority. So, your inference fails on at least some points. It could also be argued that Paul’s preference for celibacy was, in part, due to his expectation of an imminent return of Christ. If we were all celibate, the church wouldn’t last long.

But, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what he wrote on celibacy. Your argument falls on that point.

So, Jesus gave the power to “bind and loose” on twelve people. And that was it. There is no more need after 95AD (circa St. John’s death) for an authority to bind and loose. All conflicts had been settled and no more discussion was necessary. Hmmmmmm…

Celibacy is practically mandatory if you cannot risk having sex with your spouse without bringing a child into the world. After 35-40, this becomes increasingly dangerous for women. My wife had two fairly difficult pregnancies, and while we may have one more child, we haven’t made that decision yet, but I wouldn’t put her in danger by making her have 15 babies on the whim of a church’s over-zealous view of sex that isn’t even supported by its proof texts.

Well, therein lies your reasoning on Onan.

Peter had a wife, or at least had the right to have one, as did Paul. Catholic practices “go beyond what is written” a bit too much for my taste. If the Prince of the Apostles had the right to have a wife, so should the Pope and every Priest in the world.

Jesus could not “un-impose” Peter’s wedding vows, now could he? I don’t think our Lord would ask anybody to go back on a vow they made before God.

The married priesthood, however, is a discipline. It may change back some day (although I hope not). That goes back to the Apostle’s “binding and loosing” that you disagree with (or at least, the passing on of this “no longer needed” authority).

That sounds great, except for reality severely disagrees with you. I have someone in my family that was molested by a Catholic priest. If this priest didn’t get his corrupted view of right and wrong from the Catholic system where did he get it? This was not an isolated incident as everyone here knows very well. It’s probably been pandemic for centuries. Why didn’t any foresighted Catholic saints prophesy about that so it could be prevented?

Let’s keep this civil, please. We are all responsible for our own actions. To blame the church for this man’s sinfulness is to hold him unresponsible for heinous an act. Jesus did preach that there would be wicked teachers among the faithful, and that they would be separated at their judgment. I believe God has a special place reserved for any man who uses his religious position to abuse anybody else, child or adult.

Besides, if child molesting was exclusive to unmarried men, you might have a leg to stand on, but as is demonstrated throughout other organizations, child molestation knows no bounds among adult groups.

Paul also says if you struggle with lust, to marry. You’re presenting a very one-sided view of what Paul says about marriage. Guess that doesn’t apply to Western Rite Catholic Priests.

And they should choose. Marriage or priesthood.

Thanks for the friendly reminder. I find it difficult in these types of discussions to always stay charitable, but disagreement doesn’t mean there is a lack of charity. I haven’t been offended by what anybody has said (so far).

Same here, although I know you were addressing someone else. Although you may be skating on thin ice when you bring up molesting priests. Statitistics show that the percentage of child molestation among priests is no higher than child molestation among other religions’ pastors and teachers who are married.

 

[NotWorthy]

**If my interpretation is wrong, feel free to propose your own.**I’ll simply refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Let’s get one thing straight - God is right, whether I am in agreement or not, OR whether you and the Catholic church are in agreement or not. Ad populum is fallacy, by the way.

Well, if a teaching on faith and morals appears out of nowhere 1900 years after Christ’s death, what am I to think on it? Catholics are often accused of following “Traditions of men” and yet this seems to be the most blatant example of one. Well, this and the Rapture Myth.

And nice try on the appeal to ridicule too. Here are the facts - in the same chapter that the Catholic church claims explicitly condemns contraception and affirms the sanctity of life and marriage we have: Judah sleeping with a prostitute, Judah prepared to kill his daughter-in-law for prostituation (he apparently wasn’t too quick in the uptake), who also happens to be his daughter-in-law (he doesn’t realize he’s the one who impregnated her when he says to kill her), AND said “prostitute” is pregnant with an innocent life in her womb.

You seem to believe that Judah’s misactions with Tamar is somehow God’s way of saying it’s “OK”, or at least you think Catholics theology on this issue would indicate this. For example, "since God killed Onan and didn’t kill Judah, then what Judah did must have been OK", in Catholic eyes.

Mental note:Just because the inspired author shows that Judah performed these sinful things in no way means that God approves of them.

On the other side, I look at the episode you are describing as God’s way of making a far greater thing come out of an evil act such as Judah’s (and Tamar’s).

Notice, in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus, that Tamar is listed among the ancestors of Jesus. God took this sinful act, and continued the promised seed of Abraham through it. That’s a sign of God’s Love for us that He can bring something good out of evil.

The Church has always taught that God allows evil in this world so that a greater good can come of it. This is one of the mysteries of God that I will never be able to explain, but I’ve seen it proven true time and time again, although not immediately.

 

[ckempston]

And what was Paul’s thoughts no celibacy?But, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what he wrote on celibacy. Your argument falls on that point.

So, Jesus gave the power to “bind and loose” on twelve people. And that was it. There is no more need after 95AD (circa St. John’s death) for an authority to bind and loose. All conflicts had been settled and no more discussion was necessary. Hmmmmmm…

Yeah, I’d pretty much say so.

Well, therein lies your reasoning on Onan.

Right on. Since nobody said anything explicit, everyone is left to his or her own conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so long as the existing commands of God are not contradicted. It’s not my problem that for nearly 2000 years the few imposed their views on teh many.

Jesus could not “un-impose” Peter’s wedding vows, now could he? I don’t think our Lord would ask anybody to go back on a vow they made before God.

Did I say he did? I simply said Peter is explicitly allowed by Paul to have a wife, even if celibacy is “better.” The Catholic church contradicts this.

The married priesthood, however, is a discipline. It may change back some day (although I hope not). That goes back to the Apostle’s “binding and loosing” that you disagree with (or at least, the passing on of this “no longer needed” authority).

Why would you hope not? I find that odd.

Let’s keep this civil, please. We are all responsible for our own actions. To blame the church for this man’s sinfulness is to hold him unresponsible for heinous an act. Jesus did preach that there would be wicked teachers among the faithful, and that they would be separated at their judgment. I believe God has a special place reserved for any man who uses his religious position to abuse anybody else, child or adult.

Uncivil? You said celibacy does not result in any kind of deviant behavior. I provided examples that indicate it very well may. There’s no need to get defensive. Who’s to say that the wicked teachers aren’t those that forced celibacy on this man, causing him to live a life of eventually uncontrollable lust? Paul had an answer for that: marriage, and he didn’t limit anyone, including himself and Peter from that.

Besides, if child molesting was exclusive to unmarried men, you might have a leg to stand on, but as is demonstrated throughout other organizations, child molestation knows no bounds among adult groups.

Sorry, but logically, that’s incorrect. Just because others have this issue doesn’t mean that celibacy isn’t a sufficient cause for sexual deviancy. There can be multiple sufficient causes for any given effect.

And they should choose. Marriage or priesthood.
Same here, although I know you were addressing someone else. Although you may be skating on thin ice when you bring up molesting priests. Statitistics show that the percentage of child molestation among priests is no higher than child molestation among other religions’ pastors and teachers who are married.

That choice contradicts the Bible.

Which statistics are you referring to?

 

[ckempston]

I’ll simply refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Which is likely silent on this issue.

Well, if a teaching on faith and morals appears out of nowhere 1900 years after Christ’s death, what am I to think on it? Catholics are often accused of following “Traditions of men” and yet this seems to be the most blatant example of one. Well, this and the Rapture Myth.

It’s not a new teaching, it’s the removal of an old one, and a return to what the Bible teaches on the issue: nothing. When God is silent, these matters are up to the individual, led by the Spirit.

Do you think the feeling that Catholics follow the Traditions of Men is unfounded and unfair? Jesus accused the Jews of this and guess what? Their forms and methods are identical to what the Catholic church has done for hundreds of years.

You seem to believe that Judah’s misactions with Tamar is somehow God’s way of saying it’s “OK”, or at least you think Catholics theology on this issue would indicate this. For example, "since God killed Onan and didn’t kill Judah, then what Judah did must have been OK", in Catholic eyes.

My problem is if I force the Catholic interpretation on the passage (i.e. this passage is teaching us about proper relations in marriage) I am faced with some serious inconsistency, which makes me believe the passage in question has nothing to do with marriage, intercourse, or the sanctity of life, but an ancient practice (kinsman redeemer), which those very ancients, and God, took very seriously.

Mental note:Just because the inspired author shows that Judah performed these sinful things in no way means that God approves of them.

I agree. It’s placement in the surrounding passages simply makes looking at the story of Onan as a story about marital relations and “being fruitful and multiplying” a bit ridiculous. I like to call what the Catholic church has done here “cherry picking.”

On the other side, I look at the episode you are describing as God’s way of making a far greater thing come out of an evil act such as Judah’s (and Tamar’s).

Notice, in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus, that Tamar is listed among the ancestors of Jesus. God took this sinful act, and continued the promised seed of Abraham through it. That’s a sign of God’s Love for us that He can bring something good out of evil.

Not that I disagree, but…this supports your position how, exactly?

The Church has always taught that God allows evil in this world so that a greater good can come of it. This is one of the mysteries of God that I will never be able to explain, but I’ve seen it proven true time and time again, although not immediately.

Ok.

 

[YADA]

Which statistics are you referring to?

Not sure [personally] what the poster was refering to but here is a link to a very interesting article about the educational system [and how much more at risk a child in school is than in the company of a priest]

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1094835/posts

Statistically speaking the catholic church has a lower rate of sex abuse than many organizations [or occupations] … there are fewer [to zero] statutes of limitations protections and perceived ‘deep pockets’ and no need to sue the actual offender [who in many cases was dead … you just need to sue the ‘sucessor to the successor to the successor’ of the bishop who supervised the now dead offending priest … [and who ever said non-catholics don;t believe in apostolic succession]

ANd in Colorado they are attempting to pass legislation that codifies [in the laws] this disparity between how the chruch is treated and how the public schools are treated … which you can read about here:

catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2008&month=March&read=2381

 

[NotWorthy]

Statistically speaking the catholic church has a lower rate of sex abuse than many organizations [or occupations] … there are fewer [to zero] statutes of limitations protections and perceived ‘deep pockets’ and no need to sue the actual offender [who in many cases was dead … you just need to sue the ‘sucessor to the successor to the successor’ of the bishop who supervised the now dead offending priest … [and who ever said non-catholics don;t believe in apostolic succession]

One reason why the Catholic Church is recognized for this is that it is economically “profitable” to sue the Church, where it’s not as much of a windfall to sue any other church. Most church’s are single legal entities (which has led to the misunderstanding that there are 30,000+ religions - the number though far lower, is still rather large, IMO), so when you sue them, you only sue that congregation. But if you sue a Catholic Church, you sue the Diocese which represents up to 100’s of church’s.

 

[geekborj]

You’re correct. There had to be 12 Apostles at the Pentecost, in order to fulfill the Scriptures.

But Judas held, what? He held an office. What is an office? Look at the other quotes regarding succession, especially Isaiah.

What did Peter teach incorrectly?

In Galatians, Paul chastises Peter for not practicing what he was preaching. Peter did not teach in error. He just lived in error.

Numerous Catholics have chastised popes for the same reason, although various popes have lived in further error than others. But no Pope has taught a matter of faith and doctrine in error.

I can’t agree more. Peter was even called Satan by Jesus. He denied Jesus thrice. He is not perfect example but as promised by Jesus that this Rock (position, seat, office) will prevail against anything, indeed so! Note that even Peter was “rebuked” by Paul, who in the end had the final say? It was still Peter who had to promulgate the final decision. This promulgation in matters of Faith is guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics are very strong in their faith to Jesus’ words! No doubt about that here.

 

[geekborj]

Jesus never said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name under the authority of a successor to the Apostles, there I am also.”

Was this supposed to argue against the idea on the Seat of Peter? If so, this quote is i think out of context. Define the word “gathered” in my name. Is this prayer? Moreover, another interpretation would be on the phrase “in my name.” How do you know that these three people are really calling him? Not all that who calls Him “Lord” is heard.

I don’t see the logical connection of the existence of the church being dependent upon the existence of a successor. Jesus is the head, we are the body. If you cut off one part of the body, the body does not cease to exist.

Firstly, how do you become “cut off”? A visible leader is needed to define “unity” even the OT people of God needs a visible King. We are still humans and being humans, God knows we need visible proofs for unity.

 

[Pax]

ckempston,

You’ve said an awful lot and some of it has been refuted by others even though you remain in denial.

I have a limited amount of time tonight so I will only address the issue of Onan. Please be advised that you cannot argue against the facts and teachings associated with Onan by bringing up the incident of Judah and Tamar. They differ so just don’t go there. Simply focus on Onan’s actions.

What you fail to recognize about Onan is the punishment and the crime. Onan was not struck dead for having refused to perform the duty of a brother-in-law to bring up off spring for his deceased brother. The punishment for this offense is different and is outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where it says:

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.”

Please note that Onan was struck dead for coitus interuptus and spilling his seed upon the ground. The lesson here is obvious. If it were only for the offense of not doing the brothers duty he would have got the sandal treatment and a public embarrassment with a title that would follow his shame. Sorry, but you’ve got this all wrong.

 

[ckempston]

ckempston,

You’ve said an awful lot and some of it has been refuted by others even though you remain in denial.

I have a limited amount of time tonight so I will only address the issue of Onan. Please be advised that you cannot argue against the facts and teachings associated with Onan by bringing up the incident of Judah and Tamar. They differ so just don’t go there. Simply focus on Onan’s actions.

What you fail to recognize about Onan is the punishment and the crime. Onan was not struck dead for having refused to perform the duty of a brother-in-law to bring up off spring for his deceased brother. The punishment for this offense is different and is outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where it says:

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.”

Please note that Onan was struck dead for coitus interuptus and spilling his seed upon the ground. The lesson here is obvious. If it were only for the offense of not doing the brothers duty he would have got the sandal treatment and a public embarrassment with a title that would follow his shame. Sorry, but you’ve got this all wrong.

Pax, you are the one in denial. I’d hate to say you are purposely distorting the practice of levirate marriage and the cermony of Halizah, but if you’re not you’re certainly displaying a lack of Biblical exegesis. That public humiliation was only performed if the brother wished to release his sister-in-law to be married to another. Onan did not go through this ceremony, therefore, it is NOT the issue. Onan ACCEPTED the responsibility to Judah’s face, and then DECEITFULLY slept with Tamar while spilling his seed. It is the combination of everything together that resulted in Onan’s death. The Catholic view of the passage is naive at best, outright distortion at worst.

The reason I bring up the other instances of immorality in this passage, and the reason they are perfectly relevant is, as I have said, because it illustrates that this story is not about morality, but about following an ancient custom. In this same passage, you have adultery (the punishment of which is death), prostitution (the punishment of which is being cut off from the people), and the proposed murder of an unborn child (the punishment of which is death) with absolutely no punishment being actually carried out.

No, I’m afraid you are the one who is in denial.