End times

[Fidelis]

piety101:

Fidelis

       Isn't that what I posted? Yes or no? :)

No.

 

[RyanL]

piety101:

         Did the early fathers embrace a future and literal millennium?

Some yes, some no. It was not unanimous.

piety101:

         Did the early church allow bishops to marry?

Some yes, some no. Paul was not, Peter was.

piety101:

         Did the early church allow homosexuals to enter the priesthood?

Only God truly knows this answer. As for public and practicing homosexuals - the Church does not now, nor ever has, condoned homosexuality. It is a grave sin. Period. Case closed. Rome has spoken.

piety101:

Now when you have decided your answer, let me know if the church departed from some teachings once believed.

I believe in Jesus - “And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Now…who do you believe?

Peace,
RyanL

 

[piety101]

RyanL

         Oh boy, you really goofed when you said no about Paul not allowing bishops to marry. Paul clearly wrote the bishop is to be the HUSBAND of one WIFE. 

         Now let's see, Peter himself was married and Paul said a bishop was to have one wife. It sure doesn't sound like the early church was forbidding marriage for Bishops back then, now does it? Nice try Ryan. :)

 

[RyanL]

piety101:

Oh boy, you really goofed when you said no about Paul not allowing bishops to marry. Paul clearly wrote the bishop is to be the HUSBAND of one WIFE.

Now let’s see, Peter himself was married and Paul said a bishop was to have one wife. It sure doesn’t sound like the early church was forbidding marriage for Bishops back then, now does it? Nice try Ryan.

First, I have no idea why this is an issue with you. I don’t really know why I have to explain this to a fellow Catholic. Truly, I don’t. You should be a little more faithful in the Magisterium. :tsktsk:

The question you asked was as follows:

         Did the early church allow bishops to marry?

The answer, of course, is it certainly was allowed, but some (like Paul) did not marry in order to better serve the Church. Your “pet verse” about Bishops being of one wife (1 Tim 3:2, by the way) was not a declaration (i.e., “Bishops shalt have one wife!”), but rather a prudent insistance on not having a plurality of wives.

One at most, none if you can.

Currently, it is the disciplin asked by the Latin Rite that priests remain celibate, but marry the Church instead. There is ample scriptural evidence for the practice of celibacy, and I invite you to look into it: Matt. 19:11-12, Matt. 19:29, Matt. 22:30, 1 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:7, 1 Cor. 7:27, 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38, 1 Tim. 5:9-12, 2 Tim. 2:3-4, Rev. 14:4, Isaiah 56:3-7, Jer. 16:1-4. If you think that it is without precident for a priest/bishop not to have a wife, I invite you to take a long hard look at a crucifix. That is our High Priest, and He never married. Was He of a different opinion than the Early Church? Again…I put my faith in Jesus.

Peace,
RyanL

 

[piety101]

RyanL

         You are to proud to admit you are wrong. The early church for some 900 years allowed their bishops to marry if they so desired. It was a couple centuries LATER that a Pope put marriage for bishops to a halt and mandatory celibacy has been the rule of thumb all the way up to our time. 

           Yes, Paul WISHED that all men could be like him and be solely devoted to the Lord and not be troubled by the passions of the flesh, but he NEVER denied any bishop the right to marry if he chose to do so. Otherwise it would have been meaningless for Paul to say the bishop had to be the husband of one WIFE. Paul NEVER taught mandatory celibacy for bishops or elders in the church.

 

[Fidelis]

piety101:

RyanL

         You are to proud to admit you are wrong. The early church for some 900 years allowed their bishops to marry if they so desired. It was a couple centuries LATER that a Pope put marriage for bishops to a halt and mandatory celibacy has been the rule of thumb all the way up to our time. 

           Yes, Paul WISHED that all men could be like him and be solely devoted to the Lord and not be troubled by the passions of the flesh, but he NEVER denied any bishop the right to marry if he chose to do so. Otherwise it would have been meaningless for Paul to say the bishop had to be the husband of one WIFE. Paul NEVER taught mandatory celibacy for bishops or elders in the church.

Ryan isn’t refusing to admit he’s wrong because he’s proud, but because he’s right. Paul wasn’t insisting on marriage for bishops, but forbidding polygamy. Celibacy wasn’t mandatory at this point, but neither was marriage, as your interpretation would have it.

 

[piety101]

Fidelis
Listen up smart guy. Paul wasn't teaching against bishops being married. If he was, he wouldn't have said the bishop must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE. Paul, nor Peter never taught mandatory celibacy for bishops in the church. So quit trying to twist what I say and especially what Paul meant.

 

[Fidelis]

piety101:

Fidelis

       Listen up smart guy. Paul wasn't teaching against bishops being married. If he was, he wouldn't have said the bishop must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE. Paul, nor Peter never taught mandatory celibacy for bishops in the church. So quit trying to twist what I say and especially what Paul meant.

Thanks for the nice greeting.

I (nor anyone else) never said Paul was teaching against bishops being married, only that he wasn’t saying they HAVE to be married. Big difference requiring no twisting on my part. The fact that Paul or Peter never (in Scripture, anyway) taught mandatory celibacy is entirely immaterial since Catholics do not ascribe to the Protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura. You are a Catholic, aren’t you?

Fidelis aka Smart Guy

 

[catholic2]

piety101:

Fidelis

           **Your quote from Olson's book**-"True, several early Christian writers––notably Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactanitus––were premillennialists who believed that Christ’s Second Coming would lead to a visible, earthly reign."

            ** REPLY**- That was my point exactly. That the fathers DID hold to a literal millennium. What Olsen fails to tell you in his zeal, is that the fathers were pre-millennial, but NOT pre trib. Or they did not believe the Lord would come for his church BEFORE the tribulation, but rather AFTER the tribulation. Olsen failed to tell his readers those facts. That is what the early fathers wrote and believed. :)

 

[catholic2]

Piety101: Responses to your posts have been dismaying. When will people realize that a studied approach to a subject, the result though it be against one’s own prejudice, if I may ujse that word, should be considered in the spirit of understanding. It is as if there are scales in one’s spiritual eyes, and the scales are basically pride.

Escathological terms are confusing and they need to be defined. Rapture for example, also Pre-Mid-Post tribulation, Millenialism, Pre-millenialism, Amillenial. If one does not agree on the definitions, what’s the point of the discussion. I admire your patience, Piety101. Patience101 is a class I have not yet graduated from.

 

[catholic2]

Oh yes, the Catholic Church is 1. Post Tribulation and 2. Amillenial.