Well, if the canons of Nicea address it, then it is hardly “permitted.”Sorry, how am I disagreeing with you?The rule requiring priestly celibacy originated in the 11th century as an eventual result of the Cluny Reform Movement. I absolutely acknowledge that celibacy was the norm for most priests even in the early church, especially after the time of St. Benedict. However, until the institution of that church law, it was technically permitted in the west.
How do you know that? Where does the objection that “he never wore a crown” come from anyway? I hear he used to trot all over the Eternal City in his little red sandals and his triple tiara. Shucks, annie: what use is it to be pope if you don’t get to wear the cool outfit?
Well, I guess that is a possible explanation, but not a probable one.
The way that I understand “Jewish Speak” is that when silence comes after a speaker, this signifies that a speaker’s decision has ended the debate.
) may be able to verify or refute this, as I am not entirely sure.So what? Bishops in the early Church were often married. Celibacy is only a discipline, not a dogma.
And Jesus washed His Apostle’s feet. But at other times He demanded respect.
Bolony!! Peter preached what Jesus taught orally – not from any book Jesus gave him. That oral teaching is Tradition!!
He never rode in the Popemobile, either.
It is true that Peter tended to work among Jews, and Paul among gentiles, but Peter converrted the first non-Jew in the Centurian Cornelius.
Peter arrived in Rome at about the time Paul was put to death and assumed leadership of the Roman Christians at that time.
Infallibility refers **only **to matters of faith and morals. The Pope cannot predict the weather or the stock market, nor is he protected from making the normal gaffes other humans make. Peter most assuredly set aside the Mosiac dietary laws, based on his vision at Joppa, and extended that to include entering a Gentile house and eating at their table (Acts, Chapter 10) – it was Peter who revealed to the other Apostles that salvation included the Gentiles (Acts, Chapter 11.) That is the act of a Pope!!
Same old quote, same old error. You’ve been corrected on this before, Kaycee. Time to learn some new tricks.
It is not a subtle distinction to say that Scripture is inerrant but that the Church is infallible. They really are two different things. And you’ve been hangin’ around here long enough to know that infallilbility and impeccability are not the same thing and to know that the note of infallibility applies only to specific, intentional, identified statements concerning faith and morals.
Sometimes people ambush you before you’ve got your ducks in a row. I was once caught off my guard – not because I did not KNOW the answer to one of those typical Protestant taunts (Catholics worship statues) but because I didn’t have a 25-words-or-less retort framed to address the hostile mindset from which it was launched. That won’t happen again!
I disagree with you though. All Sacred Tradition that the Lord wanted us to be required to believe made its way into Scripture. Yes, the Church put the Bible together. It follows then, that if Sacred Tradition were binding on the conscience of believers that the Church would have included it all in Scripture. Right?
What a paradox you have created for yourself!
Scripture is incapable of action. It is inerrant, not infallible.
Actually, I have not created a paradox for myself. Only God and His Word are infallible. Peter was inspired by God to write the two books. However, he was not infallible as demonstrated by the many times he put his foot in his mouth and was rebuked by the Lord.What a paradox you have created for yourself!
If Peter was not infallible, what of the two Epistles of Peter in the New Testament?
Are then not the infallible Word of God?
Infallibility refers to Christ’s gift to the Church. He established His Church and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He gave the Church the gift of inerrancy.
Now Protestants are hoist by their own petard – they must reject the Kharisma of Infallibility – because if they don’t, they can’t justify breaking away from the Church.
But having rejected it, they cannot claim it. Give any Protestant a simple test – “Answer yes or no, is it possible you are wrong?”
If he says “no” then he claims infalibility (that’s what infallibility means, “can’t be wrong.”) But if he says “yes” then why should one believe his interpretation of the Bible?
Your understanding of Tradition is incorrect.
Clearly, those who associated with John for years, heard his teachings from his own lips heard things that were not written down – both things that happened beyond those recorded, and the interpretation of those things.
Scripture diesagrees with you my friend. Scripture is the Living Word and it most certainly does perform actions. In fact, it convicts of sin. It leads one to salvation through Christ. It discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. It goes out to DO that which God WILLS it to DO and does not RETURN to God void. Scripture is most certainly capable of action. It is inerrant AND infallible.
Yes, you have. You see, it’s one thing to say God is infallible, another thing entirely to say “***I ***am infallible.”
It absolutely does not mean what you say. Now, you may use the word “infallible” any way you wish – but don’t expect us to accept that as the same as the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I cannot accept that Martin Luther or any other person was justified in breaking away from the Church. The Kharisma of infallibility was not given to him.
And he failed. Look around you – the Catholic Church continues to teach the consistent doctrine it has taught for nearly 2,000 years. Protestantism, however, in less than a quarter of that time has quarreled, split, broken up, quarreled again, re-split, and fragmented into literally thousands of sects – some of which teach things diametrically opposed to what the others teach.
Ahh yes, the old “when you disagree your understanding is incorrect” assertion. I understand it. I reject it. 'nuff said?
**I know this. Remember though, that this was before Scripture was complete. Of COURSE they preached it orally, it hadn’t been all written down yet. It IS all written down now though. And anything that is written down in the New Testament is all that Jesus requires us to know in order to live holy before Him. **
**Exactly my point. Those things that were done are not required for us to know or else they would have been written down too. Since they weren’t written down in Scripture, they were not meant for us to know. **
But were they required to believe them and obey them? No. We are only required to believe and obey Scripture as it and it alone is the highest authority when it comes to faith and practice. This is what I believe and I will not give it up easily as I believe that I believe the truth.
Uh…John. What does that have to do with Tradition? And who wrote a book is far from relevant when it comes to authority on faith and practice. I don’t have to accept extra-biblical sources when it comes to Catholic teachings just because you do an exercise on who wrote a book.