John MacArthur and the Vatican Porn Collection

[historyb]

If a minister MUST be married, then Jesus and Paul were unqualified according to that statement. Would you say that Jesus could not start the Church and Paul could not be a minister, even though it was Paul who wrote 1 Timothy which you are quoting?

They’ll get around that by saying Christ is God so that doesn’t apply to him and St. Paul was an apostle so that doesn’t apply to him.

 

[Church_Militant]

First, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth but WHAT truth? You can spout of “pillar and foundation of truth” til the cows come home but you haven’t defined TRUTH.

This is not true, and if you have an issue with what the New Testament says then I suggest that you take it up with the Holy Spirit and St. Paul since they autheored that verse.

And the only thing that God left us to know TRUTH is Scripture.

That is not scriptural either. Christ did not write a book or even say anywhere that the New Testament would be commissioned by Him. If you can provide scripture to make that case then by all means do, but I don’t believe that you can Brian.

What did Jesus say? “18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16) So this ties in with Paul statement that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church.

Second, where does the Catholic Church get off forbidding married people to be priests? Does not the Bible teach that a minister in the Church must be the husband of one wife? That he must be able to rule his own household well, having his kids in subjection with all respect? That his children must be believers? Yeah…I think Scripture says that. .

This is actually off-topic to JM and his alleged Vatican porn collection, which even the secular author of “The Straight Dope” books has refuted. But since his allegation is busted as the myth that it is, we might as well push on until the Mods close this thread. There is already a good thread on here about priestly celibacy if this thread gets closed we can take it over there, but I think you are dead wrong to say that there is no scriptural basis for celibacy. Look here.

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

What’s unscriptural about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe.

Yet “your” version of “truth” (tradition) contradicts that.

I find it interesting how many Catholics like to quote an out of context Scripture to (try and) prove their case yet when Scripture clearly refutes their belief they turn to “tradition”.There’s nothing out of context about those passages Brian. Why do you attempt to condemns something that Our Lord Himself said was a good thing and done for the kingdom of heaven? Just because others (here I mean non-Catholics) decide they cannot hack the disciplne by no means makes it less commended to us in the Word of God.

So far as an appeal to Sacred Tradition, what difference does that make when all it does is confirm what the Word of God already says? So here we have a double assurance that what we believe is correct. You cannot say that. In fact you cannot even validly assert that yours is a scriptural teaching at all, as I have shown you here.

Here I think you’re the pot calling the kettle black because the scriptures are there and their meaning is clear and yet you have “cherry picked” another passage to (try and) justify why your particular religion chooses to negate a direct teaching of Our Lord. By whose authority do they do that Brian? You can’t say by the Bible’s because it’s very clear that the Bible does not support their position. That being the case, do you not have a case of traditions of men that Our Lord condemned because they negate the Word of God?

No wonder you can do no wrong

I can’t tell Brian. It sure looks to me as if the people asserting that are the ones teaching over at your church.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[pnewton]

If a minister MUST be married, then Jesus and Paul were unqualified according to that statement.

This was my first thought. Hoosier’s interpretation of this verse disqualified the author of the verse, St. Paul. So the real question is where does a single Christian “get off” interpreting everything in the Bible for himself in such a way that makes St. Paul look like an idiot. I think hoosier just made a powerful arguement for the need of Christ establishing an authoritative interpreter of the Holy Scripture.

 

[Mintaka]

What’s the word being used here for “minister”? Usually minister/servant in this kind of context would be “diakon”, ie, deacon.

And yeah, a deacon who’s a permanent deacon in the early Church was usually supposed to be married, because if you recall, his job was to pass out alms and other help to everybody the Church was aiding. His wife (diakonissa, deacon’s wife or deaconess) would go to Christian wives, widows, and virgins to bring them food, money, and help, when cooped up in homes where a male Christian couldn’t come visit that often without the neighbors thinking the wrong thing. Alternately, a diakonissa might be a little old widow church lady appointed to do the same kinds of tasks. (Yeah, I know, that takes all the glamor out of deaconesses, but that does seem to be the historical record!)

Being a diakon or diakonissa was a position of responsibility. (You touched money, you had to work hard to help all the poor people the Church was supporting, and you also had to be careful not to betray people inadvertently to persecution.)

But it was usually forbidden for a diakon to remarry if his wife died, although it seems there were occasionally exceptions for hardship cases, like having a house full of small children and no female relatives to help raise them. Once you’d dedicated your life to the Church and Jesus and been ordained, it just wasn’t done to marry or remarry.

Also, bear in mind that many Christians back then felt that no widow or widower should remarry, and that the example of widows staying widows was a big witness to outsiders of the Church’s righteousness. (It was not only a witness of love and faithfulness to one’s dead husband, but kinda like vowing poverty and inconvenience. Widows in the ancient world were at a real disadvantage.)

 

[kaycee]

Nor can you insert the word “SOME”. The scriptiures also does not say “forbidding priest to marry” or forbidding some group to marry. The Catholic Church does not forbid people to marry who want to be priest, it forbids them from being priests if they are not willing to be celibate. Drinking is not forbidden in the Bible, but a church would surely be open to not hiring a pastor who drinks. It is the right of any organization to define such disciplinary issues. The Catholic Church just acknowledges St. Paul that it is better to be unmarried, something John MacArthur did not do.

The “SOME” is surely implied. If you forbid marriage, its obvious that it must apply to at least 1 or more. It makes no sense any other way. Forbidding marriage to no one makes no sense.

Paul could never forbid “priests” to marry as he only instituted pastors and deacons. Priests were a latter inovation.

The Catholic church imposed mandatory celibacy, something Paul did not impose for obvious reasons.

BTW, you say that this was in Paul’s future when he wrote it. Actually what was said was “in the last days”. Since this discipline is centuries old, how can this possible refer to the Catholic Church, unless one thinks that Christ returned a1000 years ago?

The verse reads “in the latter times” not the last days. My original comment stands.

Catholic church or not the obvious implication is that forbidding all or anyone to marry and abstaining from meat is strongly associated with doctrines of demons and deceitful spirits.

 

[Jeanette_L]

First, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth but WHAT truth? You can spout of “pillar and foundation of truth” til the cows come home but you haven’t defined TRUTH. And the only thing that God left us to know TRUTH is Scripture. :

Actually, Christ defined the Truth as being Himself, period. So, that being defined, then the Church is the pillar and foundation of Christ’s body, He being it’s head. And He left us the Church, the pillar and foundation, precisely for us to know the Truth in it’s entirety, which is Christ and all that He entails. I don’t see where this is complicated at all unless we make it so.

Second, where does the Catholic Church get off forbidding married people to be priests? Does not the Bible teach that a minister in the Church must be the husband of one wife? That he must be able to rule his own household well, having his kids in subjection with all respect? That his children must be believers? Yeah…I think Scripture says that. :

The Church was given the authority to bind and loose on earth, as the Spirit leads. Christ himself gave her this authority. This is where she “gets off” in maintaining order and providing certain disciplines, such as celibate priests, as is needed for the spiritual health of the Church.

When the Church was in it’s infancy, which is precisely when Paul was writing his letters of instructions to the various bodies of believers, he was instructing them according to what they were, where their state in life was when they came into the Church. In other words, you were not going to find vast amount of people coming into the Church who were not already married. And his instruction that they should chose men as leaders in the Church who were husbands of only one wife, was to point out that they should not be divorced, or married to more than one woman, and that they understood how to manage their own household. He was not saying that it was a requirement to be married. On the contrary, he said it was **preferred **to be celibate like himself, but not everyone was. It took many years before the Church understood completely the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in this, that the devotion and time and energy that was required in service to Him and His Church was best accomplished by those whose focus was entirely upon it and not upon earthly longings and duties. Why is this so hard to grasp and why does it cause such a stir? It was the leading of the Holy Spirit that caused this to be written in our Scriptures by Paul to begin with, don’t we at least agree on this?

Yet “your” version of “truth” (tradition) contradicts that. I find it interesting how many Catholics like to quote an out of context Scripture to (try and) prove their case yet when Scripture clearly refutes their belief they turn to “tradition”. No wonder you can do no wrong.

I don’t see where the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is in anyway taken out of context on this issue, certainly no more than your own interpretations. And as I stated above, there is only one version of Truth, and that is Christ, and it is upon the authority He bestowed upon His Church, the pillar and foundation of that same Truth, that the Catholic Church stands, and has been for 2000 years.

I’m sorry if you find this offensive or condescending. My only advice is to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in **complete and honest submission **to Him alone, and see where He leads you on these issues. If you’re truly looking to find out the truth of it all, with no strings attached, He will see you through it.

God Bless.

 

[pnewton]

The “SOME” is surely implied.

Implied? Oh. Surely something must be impliled or it makes not sense. What I don’t get is why one modifier must be implied of another. Forbidding “some” to marry doesn’t make much more sense as everyone agrees that some should be forbidden to marry and every society bars some marriage. In our society we bar marriage to those too young, already married and those of the same gender.

The Catholic church imposed mandatory celibacy, something Paul did not impose for obvious reasons.

Again, no one must remain celibate, except those who have sworn an oath to God. It is that oath they are not allowed to break (as is forbidden in the Bible). What is mandated is that those who desire marriage or are married can not be priests. It is the priesthood that is being denied. Any one in seminary can choose a vocation to marriage. Any church has a right to determine the criteria of its ministers. The Catholic Church just follows Paul’s advice that the single state is superior and desires its priest to be the best they can be.

The verse reads “in the latter times” not the last days. My original comment stands.

Then any of the dualism that arose in early Christianity would be a perfect match.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

If a minister MUST be married, then Jesus and Paul were unqualified according to that statement. Would you say that Jesus could not start the Church and Paul could not be a minister, even though it was Paul who wrote 1 Timothy which you are quoting?

Jesus was not a minister in the local Baptist church. Paul was an Apostle. I don’t see why he could or could not be married. Again, Paul wrote the passage. Knowing that, where does your Church get off forbidding its ministers to marry or already be married? Short but sweet answer…somewhere else but the Bible.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Here is John M’s teaching on Marriage. He was certainly not saying that Pastors MUST be married.

I realize this. I was trying to make a point though, that the Catholic Church has no grounds for forbidding priests to marry or to enter the ministry after they are married. None whatsoever. Zip…zilch…nada.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

This is not true, and if you have an issue with what the New Testament says then I suggest that you take it up with the Holy Spirit and St. Paul since they autheored that verse. That is not scriptural either. Christ did not write a book or even say anywhere that the New Testament would be commissioned by Him. If you can provide scripture to make that case then by all means do, but I don’t believe that you can Brian.

What did Jesus say? “18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16) So this ties in with Paul statement that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church.This is actually off-topic to JM and his alleged Vatican porn collection, which even the secular author of “The Straight Dope” books has refuted. But since his allegation is busted as the myth that it is, we might as well push on until the Mods close this thread. There is already a good thread on here about priestly celibacy if this thread gets closed we can take it over there, but I think you are dead wrong to say that there is no scriptural basis for celibacy. Look here.

Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

What’s unscriptural about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe. There’s nothing out of context about those passages Brian. Why do you attempt to condemns something that Our Lord Himself said was a good thing and done for the kingdom of heaven? Just because others (here I mean non-Catholics) decide they cannot hack the disciplne by no means makes it less commended to us in the Word of God.

So far as an appeal to Sacred Tradition, what difference does that make when all it does is confirm what the Word of God already says? So here we have a double assurance that what we believe is correct. You cannot say that. In fact you cannot even validly assert that yours is a scriptural teaching at all, as I have shown you here.

Here I think you’re the pot calling the kettle black because the scriptures are there and their meaning is clear and yet you have “cherry picked” another passage to (try and) justify why your particular religion chooses to negate a direct teaching of Our Lord. By whose authority do they do that Brian? You can’t say by the Bible’s because it’s very clear that the Bible does not support their position. That being the case, do you not have a case of traditions of men that Our Lord condemned because they negate the Word of God?I can’t tell Brian. It sure looks to me as if the people asserting that are the ones teaching over at your church.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

I don’t think you understood what I meant. I’m going to bow out and let you win this one. I still disagree with you though.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Actually, Christ defined the Truth as being Himself, period. So, that being defined, then the Church is the pillar and foundation of Christ’s body, He being it’s head. And He left us the Church, the pillar and foundation, precisely for us to know the Truth in it’s entirety, which is Christ and all that He entails. I don’t see where this is complicated at all unless we make it so.

I’m not playing semantic games. You Catholics say that Protestants don’t have the fullness of truth. When I claim that Scripture is truth you say only Jesus is truth. When I say only Jesus is truth, you Catholics refer to Tradition, long dead saints, out of context Scripture verses, yada yada yada. If you are going to play semantic games like that and be dishonest in debate, then it’s done. No more debate on my part.

The Church was given the authority to bind and loose on earth, as the Spirit leads. Christ himself gave her this authority. This is where she “gets off” in maintaining order and providing certain disciplines, such as celibate priests, as is needed for the spiritual health of the Church.

**Lose the condescending attutude as well. Thank you. Like I said, where does the Church get off going against Scripture and forcing priests to be celibate. Just because Paul says it is preferred does not make it a command. The Church has authority in as much as they remain faithful to Scripture. **

When the Church was in it’s infancy, which is precisely when Paul was writing his letters of instructions to the various bodies of believers, he was instructing them according to what they were, where their state in life was when they came into the Church. In other words, you were not going to find vast amount of people coming into the Church who were not already married. And his instruction that they should chose men as leaders in the Church who were husbands of only one wife, was to point out that they should not be divorced, or married to more than one woman, and that they understood how to manage their own household. He was not saying that it was a requirement to be married. On the contrary, he said it was **preferred **to be celibate like himself, but not everyone was. It took many years before the Church understood completely the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in this, that the devotion and time and energy that was required in service to Him and His Church was best accomplished by those whose focus was entirely upon it and not upon earthly longings and duties. Why is this so hard to grasp and why does it cause such a stir? It was the leading of the Holy Spirit that caused this to be written in our Scriptures by Paul to begin with, don’t we at least agree on this?

Again, “preferred” does not equal “command”. You can’t make it so.

I don’t see where the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is in anyway taken out of context on this issue, certainly no more than your own interpretations. And as I stated above, there is only one version of Truth, and that is Christ, and it is upon the authority He bestowed upon His Church, the pillar and foundation of that same Truth, that the Catholic Church stands, and has been for 2000 years.

**My interpretation is not out of context. Again, “preferred” does not equal “command”. Try as you might, you can’t make it to. And when I mentioned out of context verses I was referring to many different doctrinal issues, not just this one. Can’t mention them though as it would be off topic. And as I stated above, Scripture is the truth that Jesus gave us. Again, you can’t argue that Jesus is the only version of truth when I completely agree with you. However, He left his true Word for us to read. I don’t know if you realize it or not but to imply that Scripture is not truth because only Jesus is truth pretty much destroys Tradition for you. Heck, it even destroys the Church. Jesus and Jesus alone, Tradtion and the Church are not truth. Have a good day. **

I’m sorry if you find this offensive or condescending. My only advice is to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in **complete and honest submission **to Him alone, and see where He leads you on these issues. If you’re truly looking to find out the truth of it all, with no strings attached, He will see you through it.

It’s not so much what you believe that I find condescending, it is how you say it. How can you say if I’m truly looking to find out the truth of it all…? Of course I am. And I believe that I believe the truth. Would you like it if I said that to you? God bless you too.

God Bless.

 

[hengcymatthew]

I’m awfully stunned.

thanks for opening my eye indeed . i never knew that the anti-catholics would go to such an extend. may we continue to pray for this absurb movement.

 

[Jeanette_L]

hoosierdaddy:
hoosierdaddy -

If you make it back, I just wanted to apologize for the misunderstanding. I was not trying at all to be condescending, I was just trying to be concise, to be very clear. I guess it didn’t work out that way and you have gotten quite up in a tizzy about it. You will have to remember that we are not sitting down face to face in discussion so you don’t have the advantage of knowing me personally or seeing my demeanor as we communicate. It helps to keep this in mind and not jump to conclusions, it will only get your blood pressure up, and that would not be a good thing.

Just one point to add and then I guess we can wrap this up.

When I say that Christ is the Truth, I don’t in any way negate the fact that the Scriptures are also the Truth. But Christ is the fullness of Truth, and we know that the Scriptures, although rich and possibly never to be exhausted in all that they reveal to us about God, Christ is still the fullest Truth even above them. They aren’t as complete a picture as we will someday have when we see Him face to face. And my point was, that because we are His Body, we also are called to complete the fullness of Him in His Church, which He is building, starting with His proclaimation to Peter. He is the Head, we are His Body. The Scriptures are a roadmap, completely True, but not the 3 dimentional Person of Christ and His Body, which is His Church.

Hope to see you in heaven, maybe we can have a good chuckle about all of this!

God Bless.

 

[lak611]

Jesus was not a minister in the local Baptist church. Paul was an Apostle. I don’t see why he could or could not be married. Again, Paul wrote the passage. Knowing that, where does your Church get off forbidding its ministers to marry or already be married? Short but sweet answer…somewhere else but the Bible.

The fact the Paul was an Apostle is irrelevant. Peter, the first Pope, was an apostle, and he had a wife since he had a mother-in-law. So the Catholic Church did not forbid clergy to marry. This was a later discipline, and only in the Latin Church. Eastern Catholics are still allowed to be priests and be married. And even today, not all Latin Catholic clergy are celibate. Deacons are ordained clergymen, and they are allowed to marry. Mr. MacArthur is clearly mistaken in terms of the Catholic teaching on the clergy and marriage.

 

[BobCatholic]

Here is John M’s teaching on Marriage. He was certainly not saying that Pastors MUST be married.

I realize this. I was trying to make a point though, that the Catholic Church has no grounds for forbidding priests to marry or to enter the ministry after they are married. None whatsoever. Zip…zilch…nada.

Except for the Apostolic interpretation of scripture, scripture and the Church’s authority.

 

[BobCatholic]

Like I said, where does the Church get off going against Scripture and forcing priests to be celibate.

Who declared the Church went against Scripture?
Who made this magisterial ruling? Why should anyone accept the magisterial authority of the person who made this ruling?

If this person is you, where do you get off going against scripture by claiming to have magisterial authority without having the requisite scriptural standards?

 

[Jeanette_L]

Who declared the Church went against Scripture?
Who made this magisterial ruling? Why should anyone accept the magisterial authority of the person who made this ruling?

If this person is you, where do you get off going against scripture by claiming to have magisterial authority without having the requisite scriptural standards?

This seems to be the common problem with those who argue that authority to interpret scripture, and to put forth disciplines, and settle dogmatic questions in the church doesn’t exist, but really what they are saying is that it doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church.

This same authority is somehow uniquely reserved for themselves and their personal favorite teachers of various doctrines that seem right to them. They wouldn’t dare use the term “authority”, but in reality it is truly their presumption and self declared right.

 

[lak611]

This seems to be the common problem with those who argue that authority to interpret scripture, and to put forth disciplines, and settle dogmatic questions in the church doesn’t exist, but really what they are saying is that it doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church.

This same authority is somehow uniquely reserved for themselves and their personal favorite teachers of various doctrines that seem right to them. They wouldn’t dare use the term “authority”, but in reality it is truly their presumption and self declared right.

And what is Mr. MacArthur’s authority? According to Mr. MacArthur, Paul would disqualify himself from being a pastor because Paul was single. I think Mr. MacArthur is terribly confused because Paul wrote 1 Timothy, and Paul was unmarried himself.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Hoosierdaddy says,

Lose the condescending attutude as well. Thank you. Like I said, where does the Church get off going against Scripture and forcing priests to be celibate. Just because Paul says it is preferred does not make it a command. The Church has authority in as much as they remain faithful to Scripture.

I think maybe Hoosierdaddy should follow his own advice about condensation. I don’t disagree with his views regarding scripture, just his interpretations. If you look at the thousands of Protestant denominations around the globe you will quickly see that they all interpret scripture differently. Even within the same denomination scripture interpretations often differ from church to church. It’s pretty obvious that they all can’t be right so Hoosierdaddy might not want to be too quick in dismissing Catholic interpretation.

Within the Catholic Church this problem does not exist because Catholic doctrine is taught the same way everywhere……for a reason. We believe that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and appointed Peter as its head and we believe this is grounded in scripture. We also believe that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra regarding matters of faith and morals he is guided by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible.

As can be seen by the discussion provoked by this thread scripture is not easy to interpret. I believe that God revealed his word through the bible but I don’t believe he expected each person to get a bible and figure it out for themself. We need help to correctly interpret scripture. So I expect we Catholics will continue to have discussions and debates with our non-Catholic brethren but I sincerely hope we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Iowa Mike