Prodigal's Isle

[Socrates4Jesus]

We should all strive for perfection in Christ even though we often trip and fall. Our deacons, priests, bishops and Pope’s are supposed to be the best examples of striving for the perfection in Christ that is called for in scripture. Most people realize this intuitively if not by way of scripture. It is for this reason that a scandal among our Church leadership is so utterly devastating to the members.

We are not to be double minded. That holds true for us and the clergy.

Yes, i agree! All of us (including every bishop, without exception) should try to obey the words of Sacred Scripture that apply.



But does this mean every word, or do bishops have the freedom to pick and choose what they will obey? For example, when we read the passage you mention (and thank you for pointing out the other translations that do use the word bishop),For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)
Should any bishop be even tempered, but a drunk? Or should he be gentle, but greedy? Or should he be hospitable, but unjust? Should such duplicity be tolerated, or should every bishop seek to obey every command given to bishops in Sacred Scripture?

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ,

They must seek to obey every command. Bad behavior always brings scandal and hurts the body of Christ regardless of other good behaviors.

1 Cor 12:24-27 says:

But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

All those things that are good among the members are good for the body; all those things that are bad among the members hurt the body.

 

[Thing]

Yes, i agree! All of us (including every bishop, without exception) should try to obey the words of Sacred Scripture that apply.



But does this mean every word, or do bishops have the **freedom **to pick and choose what they will obey? For example, when we read the passage you mention (and thank you for pointing out the other translations that do use the word bishop),For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)
Should any bishop be even tempered, but a drunk? Or should he be gentle, but greedy? Or should he be hospitable, but unjust? Should such duplicity be tolerated, or should every bishop seek to obey every command given to bishops in Sacred Scripture?

Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity

ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE
EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH
EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1989

---

NOTE OF PRESENTATION
The faithful who are called to exercise an office in the name of the church are required to make the profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See (cf. Canon 833). In addition, the obligation of a special oath of fidelity with regard to the particular duties inherent in the office that is to be exercised–previously prescribed solely for bishops–has been extended to the categories named in Canon 833, Nos. 5-8. As a result, it has become necessary to provide for the advance preparation of texts suitable for this purpose-updating them with a style and content more in conformity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of documents that followed.

The formula of the profession of faith repeats in its entirety the first part of the text that has been in effect since 1967 and that contains the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (cf. ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS, 59, 1967, p. 1058). The second part has been modified and subdivided into three paragraphs so as to distinguish better the type of truth and the corresponding assent that is sought.

The formula of the oath of fidelity on assuming an office to be exercised in the name of the church–understood as being complementary to the profession of faith- -is enacted for those categories of the faith listed in Canon 833, Nos. 5-8. It is a new composition; in it provision is made for some variants in Paragraphs 4 and 5 for use by major superiors of institutes of the consecrated life and societies of apostolic life (cf. Canon 833, No. 8).

The texts of the new formulas of the profession of faith and of the oath of fidelity will take effect starting March 1, 1989.

---

I. PROFESSION OF FAITH
(Formula to be employed henceforth in cases in which the profession of faith is required by law.)

I, Socrates., with firm faith believe and profess **everything **that is contained in the symbol of faith: namely,

I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith I believe as well **everything **contained in God’s word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the church–whether in solemn judgment or in the ordinary and universal Magisterium–as divinely revealed and called for faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and **every thing **that is proposed by that same church definitively with regard to teaching concerning faith or morals.

What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

---

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

They must seek to obey every command. Bad behavior always brings scandal and hurts the body of Christ regardless of other good behaviors. …

Sorry for taking so long to respond, and for neglecting to mention i was leaving to take my wife out to eat for her birthday.

Yes, i agree, *every *command. Let’s look at this command:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

(Titus 1:5-6)

These commands apply to the elders (or bishops) that Titus was to appoint in every city, for they immediately follow the passage we have been discussing.
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)

Please, let me ask you this: How many wives does the Catholic Church allow a bishop to have?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity

ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE
EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH
EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1989

… With firm faith I believe as well **everything **contained in God’s word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the church–whether in solemn judgment or in the ordinary and universal Magisterium–as divinely revealed and called for faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and **every thing **that is proposed by that same church definitively with regard to teaching concerning faith or morals.

What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

So then, the priest, or bishop, or Pope is to believe *this *passage of God’s word?
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders [or bishops] in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

(Titus 1:5-6)That is, there is nothing wrong with a bishop having a wife and children of his own?

 

[Thing]

So then, the priest, or bishop, or Pope is to believe *this *passage of God’s word?
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders [or bishops] in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

(Titus 1:5-6)That is, there is nothing wrong with a bishop having a wife and children of his own?

Nothing wrong with it at all, if he has not already taken vows not to marry etc.
I suspect it would be difficult 2000 years ago to find a mature and responsible man for this job who was not also a married man. The passage you mention is saying that a man should be blameless and the husband of only one wife. Not that he must be a married man.
Many Saints in the Churches history were married, and some became priests when their wives died. St. Paul, as you know, said; But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: [that is, single].
Catholic priests and Bishops follow St. Paul and Christs example here, and take vows.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Nothing wrong with it at all, if he has not already taken vows not to marry etc.
I suspect it would be difficult 2000 years ago to find a mature and responsible man for this job who was not also a married man. The passage you mention is saying that a man should be blameless and the husband of only one wife. Not that he must be a married man.
Many Saints in the Churches history were married, and some became priests when their wives died. St. Paul, as you know, said; But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: [that is, single].
Catholic priests and Bishops follow St. Paul and Christs example here, and take vows.

I think there is a big difference between a husband of one wife and a widower of one wife. Do you?

 

[Thing]

I think there is a big difference between a husband of one wife and a widower of one wife. Do you?

emm… yes, the wife is dead. Some eastern Catholic Churches, I think, allow married priests. The Latin rite follows, now, St. Pauls and Christs’ example and the priests remain single. I think also during the war (or some trouble in, former, Russia) for a time Latin rite priests were allowed to marry as they would have been executed if they were found. Marrage was their camuflage, so they could continue to minister to the people there.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

emm… yes, the wife is dead. Some eastern Catholic Churches, I think, allow married priests. The Latin rite follows, now, St. Pauls and Christs’ example and the priests remain single. I think also during the war (or some trouble in, former, Russia) for a time Latin rite priests were allowed to marry as they would have been executed if they were found. Marrage was their camuflage, so they could continue to minister to the people there.

And these words of Sacred Scripture, do they describe a bishop whose wife is alive, or dead? This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

(1 Timothy 3:1-5)

 

[Thing]

And these words of Sacred Scripture, do they describe a bishop whose wife is alive, or dead? This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

(1 Timothy 3:1-5)

Nothing wrong with it at all, if he has not already taken vows not to marry etc.
I suspect it would be difficult 2000 years ago to find a mature and responsible man for this job who was not also a **currently **married man. The passage you mention is saying that a man should be blameless and the husband of only **one **wife. Not that he **must **be a married man.
Many Saints in the Churches history were married, and some became saints and/or priests/monks/nuns/bishops when their wives/husbands died. St. Paul, as you know, said; “But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: [that is, single].”
Catholic priests and Bishops follow St. Paul and Christs example here, and take vows.

 

[Pax]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, and for neglecting to mention i was leaving to take my wife out to eat for her birthday.

Yes, i agree, *every *command. Let’s look at this command:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

(Titus 1:5-6)

These commands apply to the elders (or bishops) that Titus was to appoint in every city, for they immediately follow the passage we have been discussing.
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

(Titus 1:7-9)

Please, let me ask you this: How many wives does the Catholic Church allow a bishop to have?

Soc in Christ,

I agree with Thing on this one. Let me add something that may be significant. Paul was writing his letters with “practical” content that was appropriate to the recipients. In the early Church many converts were already married before their conversions. The Church would not automatically prevent these married people from becoming bishops. As a practical matter they would have had difficulty finding unmarried men in sufficient numbers to fill the ranks of the elders. It is important to remember that Paul’s gentile listeners were converted from some pretty wild pagan religions and multiple marriages were not uncommon. Such things would be serious baggage for a gentile convert and would probably compromise them as elders.

The one wife rule did not mean that someone “had to be married.” Paul even argues that it is better if they remain single as he did.

The rules on marriage among the clergy are disciplines imposed by the Church. A discipline can be changed. Matters of faith and morals, however, remain constant in doctrine. Historically, we have had married clergy. Even in modern times we have had some married clergy in the Eastern Catholic rites, but the Latin right clergy have not been allowed to marry in modern times. Just a difference in discipline and canon law within the rites that exist in union with Rome.

I do not see this as an issue one way or the other.

P.S. I’m glad you took your wife out to eat for her birthday. No doubt it was an enjoyable outing. I love how scripture likes to describe meals and feasts in Jewish practice and it’s references to the kingdom as a marriage banquet. Sharing meals together is a very important part of our human activities. Besides, it is a good thing that our wives thoroughly enjoy.

God bless.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I agree with Thing on this one. Let me add something that may be significant. Paul was writing his letters with “practical” content that was appropriate to the recipients. In the early Church many converts were already married before their conversions. The Church would not automatically prevent these married people from becoming bishops. As a practical matter they would have had difficulty finding unmarried men in sufficient numbers to fill the ranks of the elders. It is important to remember that Paul’s gentile listeners were converted from some pretty wild pagan religions and multiple marriages were not uncommon. Such things would be serious baggage for a gentile convert and would probably compromise them as elders.

The one wife rule did not mean that someone “had to be married.” Paul even argues that it is better if they remain single as he did.

The rules on marriage among the clergy are disciplines imposed by the Church. A discipline can be changed. Matters of faith and morals, however, remain constant in doctrine. Historically, we have had married clergy. Even in modern times we have had some married clergy in the Eastern Catholic rites, but the Latin right clergy have not been allowed to marry in modern times. Just a difference in discipline and canon law within the rites that exist in union with Rome.

I do not see this as an issue one way or the other.

Thank you, Pax for answering. Yes, i agree one cannot infer that marriage was a requirement, but one cannot infer that being a widower is a requirement, either. Let me see if i understand you correctly. You are saying that at the birth of the Church, men were allowed to become priests and bishops if they were married. However, somewhere along the line, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Teaching of the Magisterium decided someone who was married could not become a priest, much less a bishop. Am i understanding correctly?

 

[Pax]

Thank you, Pax for answering. Yes, i agree one cannot infer that marriage was a requirement, but one cannot infer that being a widower is a requirement, either. Let me see if i understand you correctly. You are saying that at the birth of the Church, men were allowed to become priests and bishops if they were married. However, somewhere along the line, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Teaching of the Magisterium decided someone who was married could not become a priest, much less a bishop. Am i understanding correctly?

Soc in Christ,

Pretty much so…this is true particularly in the Latin rite, but not in the eastern rite where priests can still be married.

Interestingly enough most priests prefer celibacy as part of their calling. Only a small percentage would encourage marriage as part of the call. Paul’s words on the preferability of celibacy and those of Jesus in Matt 19:12 are helpful in this regard.

God bless.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Pretty much so…this is true particularly in the Latin rite, but not in the eastern rite where priests can still be married.

Interestingly enough most priests prefer celibacy as part of their calling. Only a small percentage would encourage marriage as part of the call. Paul’s words on the preferability of celibacy and those of Jesus in Matt 19:12 are helpful in this regard.

God bless.

Yes, but there is a significant difference between *encouraging *one to be celibate and *requiring *one to be celibate. But i’m not questioning the morality of celibacy. As you mentioned, Paul wrote that He wished more men had the strength from God to not have sexual desires.

My concern is that the Sacred Traditions and Magisterium’s teaching are not in harmony with Sacred Scripture. I see no way to say that they agree on this one point, for Paul indicates there is no sin in a bishop holding office while married, and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium’s teaching suggests (it seems to me) that it would be a sin for a bishop to take office while married or to remain in office after taking a wife.

So how do you and other Catholics reconcile this apparent contradiction? Do you say that where the Sacred Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium disagree, Tradition and the Magisterium take precedence?

 

[Pax]

Yes, but there is a significant difference between *encouraging *one to be celibate and *requiring *one to be celibate. But i’m not questioning the morality of celibacy. As you mentioned, Paul wrote that He wished more men had the strength from God to not have sexual desires.

My concern is that the Sacred Traditions and Magisterium’s teaching are not in harmony with Sacred Scripture. I see no way to say that they agree on this one point, for Paul indicates there is no sin in a bishop holding office while married, and Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium’s teaching suggests (it seems to me) that it would be a sin for a bishop to take office while married or to remain in office after taking a wife.

So how do you and other Catholics reconcile this apparent contradiction? Do you say that where the Sacred Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium disagree, Tradition and the Magisterium take precedence?

It is important to keep in mind that the Church discipline in this matter does not prevent or discourage a man from marriage. One can freely choose to marry or one can freely choose celibacy and the priesthood.

Paul not only wrote encouraging words concerning celibacy, but he also discussed what was a seeming dispute about his own celibacy. In 1 Cor 9:3-6 Paul says the following:

This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

Soc in Christ,

I find this passage interesting because Paul is talking about those that would examine him. Apparently something was already going on in the Church concerning marriage of those that were elders. Paul was not in a position to make a decision for the Church on this issue any more than he was in a position to make a decision on the issue for the whole Church when it came to circumcision. We know that the latter issue was settled by the Church at the Council of Jerusalem and that the decision was binding because it was the official decision of the Church. Likewise, the issue of celibacy among the clergy is an issue that would need to be settled by the Church.

Surely, the Church has the authority in binding and loosening to make the decision in both circumcision and celibacy of the clergy. Moreover, the Church has the authority and capacity to bind or loose on the matter of celibacy at anytime.

I hope this helps and God bless.

P.S. Would the power of binding and loosening tend to harmonize the scriptures that concern you about bishops and marriage vis-a-vis current Roman rite Catholic practice and discipline?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is important to keep in mind that the Church discipline in this matter does not prevent or discourage a man from marriage. One can freely choose to marry or one can freely choose celibacy and the priesthood …

True. It *does, *however prevent a priest, *bishop *or *Pope *from marriage. But why prevent anything that is not a sin? Paul writes:
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

(1 Corinthians 7:28)

And Paul describes the sin of some religious heretics, saying this:

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

(1 Timothy 4:3)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I find this passage interesting because Paul is talking about those that would examine him. Apparently something was already going on in the Church concerning marriage of those that were elders. Paul was not in a position to make a decision for the Church on this issue any more than he was in a position to make a decision on the issue for the whole Church when it came to circumcision. We know that the latter issue was settled by the Church at the Council of Jerusalem and that the decision was binding because it was the official decision of the Church. Likewise, the issue of celibacy among the clergy is an issue that would need to be settled by the Church.

Surely, the Church has the authority in binding and loosening to make the decision in both circumcision and celibacy of the clergy. Moreover, the Church has the authority and capacity to bind or loose on the matter of celibacy at anytime.

I hope this helps and God bless.

P.S. Would the power of binding and loosening tend to harmonize the scriptures that concern you about bishops and marriage vis-a-vis current Roman rite Catholic practice and discipline?

Yes, and i find it interesting that Paul writes that he rebuked Peter publicly for not associating with non-circumcised Christians. So i wonder if this truth that circumcision was no longer required by God was revealed to Paul first, before Peter came to accept it.

But please let me ask you this: Would you say that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium’s teaching are three ways that God communicates His will to us?

 

[Pax]

Yes, and i find it interesting that Paul writes that he rebuked Peter publicly for not associating with non-circumcised Christians. So i wonder if this truth that circumcision was no longer required by God was revealed to Paul first, before Peter came to accept it.

But please let me ask you this: Would you say that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium’s teaching are three ways that God communicates His will to us?

Soc in Christ,

Paul did not change Peter’s stand on circumcision. Paul’s rebuke to Peter was in response to Peter acting hypocritically. Peter had already established the Church’s rule on circumcision at the Council in Jerusalem. The development of Peter’s stand on the issue comes through in Acts chapter 10 and 11, and then is explicitly articulated at the council in Acts 15:1-11.

Paul’s rebuke does not occur until later in Antioch when Peter acted hypocritically in the presence of the circumcision party[Gal 2:6-14]. Peter rendered an infallible declaration at the council of Jerusalem binding on the Church. Peter was protected from error in this binding declaration, but was not protected from acting sinfully and hypocritically before the circumcision party later at Antioch. Infallibility is not impeccability. It is also important to note that Peter made his declaration as the acknowledged leader/pope of the Church and did so in concert with the apostles and elders.

As far as your question is concerned about God communicating his will to us, I would have to answer…Yes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Paul did not change Peter’s stand on circumcision. Paul’s rebuke to Peter was in response to Peter acting hypocritically. Peter had already established the Church’s rule on circumcision at the Council in Jerusalem. The development of Peter’s stand on the issue comes through in Acts chapter 10 and 11, and then is explicitly articulated at the council in Acts 15:1-11.

Paul’s rebuke does not occur until later in Antioch when Peter acted hypocritically in the presence of the circumcision party[Gal 2:6-14]. Peter rendered an infallible declaration at the council of Jerusalem binding on the Church. Peter was protected from error in this binding declaration, but was not protected from acting sinfully and hypocritically before the circumcision party later at Antioch. Infallibility is not impeccability. It is also important to note that Peter made his declaration as the acknowledged leader/pope of the Church and did so in concert with the apostles and elders.

Thanks for clearing that up. I don’t recall Luke writing in Acts that Peter made the declaration ex cathedra. I’ll have to look that one up when my usual biblical search site is on line again (it went down today).

As far as your question is concerned about God communicating his will to us, I would have to answer…Yes.

It makes sense to me that God would choose more than one method to speak. Would you say, then that the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and Teaching of the Magisterium are like a kind of Trinity, at least in their relationship to one another? For the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are in perfect harmony with one another. When the Father speaks in the Old Testament, we know the Son and the Spirit agree. When the Son speaks in the New Testament, we know that what He says is what the Father wills. And the Holy Spirit guides the Apostles (and their rightful successors) to always speak the truth from the Father in the love of Christ. In a similar fashion, the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterium are in perfect harmony with one another. Would you say this is also true?

 

[Pax]

I believe them to be in harmony. At one time I was a “cafeteria catholic” and later had a second conversion. This conversion of heart did not mean that my questions were answered, but it prompted me to begin a quest for the answers. There is a parallel between us in that you too are on a quest for truth. The wonderful thing for me was that every question or disagreement I had eventually evaporated as I examined scripture and tradition to see if I was right or if the Church was right in her teaching. The experience was humbling…I found that I was wrong and that the Church was right all along. So yes…I believe all three to be in harmony.

God bless.