Prodigal's Isle

[pneuma07]

Please don’t misunderstand. That’s not *my *belief, that’s what every Protestant i’ve ever heard teach on this subject has proposed. I don’t know if what they say is true. According to the Protestant argument, it’s not that the Catholic Church was deceived from the get go; the deception was gradual and only became pervasive and permanent centuries after Christ. However, in the Roman Catholic religion, there were always those who remained faithful to Christ, but rejected those doctrines of the church that were contrary to the true Gospel of Christ. That’s what they tell me. As evidence, they rarely point to Church history. Instead, they present Catholic doctrine and then compare it to Sacred Scripture as evidence that some established doctrines of the Catholic Church have become corrupted by error.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
(Ecclesiastes 1:9)

There is a story in the Old Testament, where the Prophet Elijah is a hunted man. The king of the Jewish people has vowed to kill him when he catches up with him. He, like the majority of Israel, have turned from God to worship idols. Fleeing for his life, Elijah hides in the desert and desperately prays:“I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

(1 Kings 19:10)
God’s reply to the Prophet:“I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”

(v. 19)
To Protestants, Luther was their Elijah. The Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church was the Baal worship they were protesting. And the 7,000 were those who left the Catholic Church when it’s bishops and Pope failed to reform as Luther said it must. That is, what had happened before had happened again.

Dear Soc,

I’m aware this is a typical discourse you listen. ( I’d like to underline the “teaching” aspect, in case we can come back to that later ) .

It is very intriguing that history is rarely considered. ( I know that, on this forum itself, there are protestant brothers deep into history, but the rule is IMHO too what you describe).
Go and go, it seems we’re back to the one body of evidence reformation appears to have been built upon: *the personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the reformer *or a follower of his. Hence my question originating the examination in Five Steps. .A reformer is a person telling us he, an individual with his private judgment, reads Scripture better than the Church. Than reformer2 comes, and tells us his personal judgment is so powerful that he reads Scripture , of course better than the Catholic Church, but also better than reformer1.
And so on. This being the game, why should I follow any reformerN, if I can be sure reformer(N+1) will follow ? Because each of them claims to follow the Holy Spirit ? Can the Holy Spirit be the author of confusion ?

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

(Ecclesiastes 1:9)
There is a story in the Old Testament, where the Prophet Elijah is a hunted man. The king of the Jewish people has vowed to kill him when he catches up with him. He, like the majority of Israel, have turned from God to worship idols. Fleeing for his life, Elijah hides in the desert and desperately prays:

In another narrative the 7,000 are identified as those “faithful remnants” who would remain in the right path during the long centuries after Constantine and before Reformation. They were “the true Church”.
This sort of presence appears quite necessary to the reformed discourses, in order to explain the promise of constant assistance. There are to my poor knowledge two versions of this: 1) the “invisible Church” ( …) “aka the small case catholic church of the true believers” and 2) the scattered visible congregations which seem dear to some Baptists ( for which evidence is so missing ).

The 7,000 in 1 Kings and their prophet, as we can see, never adhered to Baal ( another religion altogether, (BTW, not a different way to read Scripture and follow the Lord ) in the first place.
Luther’s followers, like himself, had been …catholic, so they do not give us the required continuity. We need 1 or 2) to support the reformed claim.

You see again what a step is eliminating from the possibilities the “invisible Church” . …

 

[pneuma07]

They go back further than the Church Fathers; they return to the genesis of the Catholic Church. The go to Jesus words in the Gospels and the Apostles words in the Book of Acts, and try to imitate these as much as possible.

But if God’s words to Elijah apply, then He never abandoned the people of the Church, just the corrupt doctrine of the Church (again, i don’t know if this is true, i’m just telling you what the Protestants tell me).

Sorry, i’m unfamiliar with the term* pars costruens* and the online translator i used came up with nothing. Please explain.

True. And the reason for this is that the words of Christ are ambiguous and require interpretation. Which is why i’m here, to determine if the Tradition and Magisterium should be my interpreter. For example, when Jesus says this

Which is very commendable, IMHO. And what every Christian should do, I suppose. Without necessarily postulating that his/her own reading ( or a given Reformer’s reading) is the best, and that the leadership of the Church through which the Holy Spirit has fixed what is Scripture ( aka the Canon) has been preaching
grave errors for centuries and centuries.

Another solution being listening to the words of the legitimate successors of the Apostles.
I do imagine there can be a comprehensible appeal in creating new small committed communities of believers.
Also because, they can really make you feel as if you were back to the very early Church: which was precisely new, small and committed . The Catholic Church for sure is neither small nor new ( and so many of her children are so little committed ) . But beyond this exterior appeal, catholics are much more the likes of the first believers: they listen to the words issued by the apostolic authority, and can say they are in that very Church, which has grown large ( because she has made disciples from all the nations, as commanded) and is almost 2,000 ( because she has been there from the beginning, and that points to Jesus being always with “you”, being in the first place the legitimate successors of the Apostles ).

Early believers, were not after Sola Scriptura. They were after the Apostles and their direct successors. They did not propose to build Christianity again from scratch, outside and against the apostolic church, but preserving Scriptures, without any sort of authority to do that.
Or better , some would do that, committing Korah’s sin.

I mean there was a “destroying part” and a “building, positive part”. Reformers set out new CONtexts, IMHO. Not the original ones back. First, there was no NT in the apostolic time. There was, instead, the Apostolic Church, before a verse of the NT had been written. But if you go to the moment when the NT had been written and the Canon established by the Holy Spirit through the leadership of the Apostolic Church, the CONtext to read it was the Apostolic Church and her life. Not , say, Zwingli’s own personal judgment.

 

[pneuma07]

Humble? Would you call a person who seeks treatment for cancer humble? Or would you call him prudent, or perhaps brave? Deception, it seems to me, is a kind of cancer of the brain.



Yes, i like that quote! Funny, though. From what i understand, the Catholic Church considers reason an Intellectual Virtue that man develops in himself, apart from Divine assistance. Faith, on the other hand, is considered a Theological Virtue that requires Divine assistance. Am i correct?

As it was, I admire you.

Glad you like the quote. Faith is a Theological Virtue, dunno about “Intrellectual Virtues”: what comes next ? …

 

[pneuma07]

Two thoughts come to mind: First, while it is true that (1a) and (1b) and (1c) might all be true, it is also true that any one of these might be true and the other two false, and it is also true that any two of these might be true and the other one false. So it is entirely possible that (1a) might be false. Second, while it is true that (1a) and (1b) and (1c) might all be true, the fact remains that Jesus did not mean all three. The grammar demands that He meant only one of the three. If indeed He meant all three, He would have said this:

1d.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on** [these rocks]** I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18) Since He said, “this rock,” He obviously meant only (1a) or (1b) or (1c), but not all three.

If Christ’s words can reasonably taken to mean (1a) or (1b) or (1c), then they meet the definition of ambiguity.

am⋅bi⋅gu⋅i⋅ty

/ˌæmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbɪˈgyuhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngti/ cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-bi-gyoo-i-tee] cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA–noun, plural -ties. 1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner. 2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.: a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.
The question i’m asking, which no one has answered, is why? Why would Jesus intentionally choose words that could so easily be misunderstood?

Who is advocating the necessity of a Defender of Scripture ? …

I wouldn’t say Jesus would speak with ambiguity in the sense he wanted to create uncertainty. Would you ?. He does certainly permit His words being misunderstood. He permitted heresies on His own being to flourish for centuries, and people “chhosing” their own interpretations outside o within those of the Apostolic Church. . He later permitted Reformation, and the following explosion of conflicting scriptural interpretations.

On this seminal pericope in particular, you don’t see “uncertainty of intention”.
In any case the Lord can be seen to establish a unique connection between Himself and Simon. He extols him in a solemn manner and then pronounces the “You are Petros, and on this petra…. “ And the attribution
Of the keys. The “And” makes sure , together with the immediate context, that either the petra IS Petros , or it is specially linked to him: as in the case of Christ or Peter’s confession.
Can it be misleading saying that Christ Himself is the ultimate foundation, the cornerstone ? Not at all.
If then Christ is the ultimate “petra”, calling Simon “Rock” means associating him with the Lord in a way which has no comparison. This in itself would give you a solid petrine primacy, IMHO.
Peter’s confession, then, cannot be removed from Peter himself. So as Peter is such because of his confession.

The three readings give the same intention IMHO: putting Peter into a unique position. The Church fathers could have a personal inclination now for one then for the other reading. None among them, to my poor knowledge, wrote that 1a has to be excluded. None attacked a brother because of the different interpretative inclination on the pericope. None admonished: beware this pericope has nothing to do with petrine primacy. With Reformation, on the contrary, all of this happened in the most striking way, moved by the necessity to destroy the roots of papacy.

It is not that we have to see three different “petrai” there. Rather one, which can be seen in the first place as Simon himself, and also as Simon’s Lord and Simon’s confession about Him.

Consider this one. In John 21 the Lord asks Peter: “Do you love me more than these ?” The Greek grammar permits here to
Understand :

1. Do you love me more than these (ie the other main Apostles ) do ?
2. Do you love me more than you love these ( ie the other Apostles and everything which could be seen there : the lake, the sky, fishing …)…

Both possibilities show that petrine primacy is a primacy of love, based on love. The first one ( the one preferred by most translations) more clearly so, since it puts Peter “over” the other Apostles.

Is that ambiguity ? I’d imagine that if Greek permits both, none must be excluded, and both should be understood meaning the same intention. There exist a primacy in love on which Peter’s status is founded.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe them to be in harmony. …

I think they should be. Otherwise God would be contradicting Himself. That’s the roadblock i’ve come up against at this moment. And it’s as though i can nearly make out my destination beyond the barrier, but there’s a demon (or an angel; i know not which) dressed like a traffic cop, standing in front of my vehicle, and gesturing me to turn around and go back!

The road block is this: Reason and Sacred Scripture tell me the three should indeed be in harmony. But there is the apparent contradiction: The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition command that a bishop must not be, nor become, married if he wants to remain, or become, a bishop. Yet Paul indicates a bishop may be or become married, and that there is no sin in taking a wife, nor in sexual intimacy within marriage.

So what say you? Is this police officer demonic, or angelic? Is this a real contradiction, or only an apparent one?

http://www.curtispublishing.com/images/NonRockwell/9260605.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… It is very intriguing that history is rarely considered. ( I know that, on this forum itself, there are protestant brothers deep into history, but the rule is IMHO too what you describe). …

It’s not that they are historically illiterate. By no means! The teachers to whom i’ve had exposure have a great deal of knowledge of ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Canaanite, Jewish, and Roman history. Yet, the scope of their historical insight is limited to the time-period of Sacred Scripture. This is might be due to their purpose, which is to provide a richer context to the biblical text. By that i’m using a narrow definition of context, specifically the culture and historical events of the same time period in which the biblical authors wrote. Ask one of these teachers about ancient history prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple, and they’ll keep your interest for hours! Ask them about early Church history, and they will know little beyond the book of Acts.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Go and go, it seems we’re back to the one body of evidence reformation appears to have been built upon: *the personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the reformer *or a follower of his. Hence my question originating the examination in Five Steps. .A reformer is a person telling us he, an individual with his private judgment, reads Scripture better than the Church. Than reformer2 comes, and tells us his personal judgment is so powerful that he reads Scripture , of course better than the Catholic Church, but also better than reformer1.
And so on. This being the game, why should I follow any reformerN, if I can be sure reformer(N+1) will follow ? Because each of them claims to follow the Holy Spirit ? Can the Holy Spirit be the author of confusion ? …

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

–St. Augustine
This quote was one on the logo for an Evangelical Church i once attended regularly. It’s also one of the few quotes from the early Church Fathers i’ve heard taught by Protestants. The thing about reformer 1, reformer 2 and reformer 3 is that (at least from an Evangelical Christian’s point of view) it does not matter whom you prefer, as long as each agrees with the essential doctrines of the historic Christian Faith. There is a Protestant organization that has experts on staff from many different denominations, and from non-denominational churches. The members of this organization disagree on matters which they consider non-essentials, such as Church government, and the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, but they agree on the essentials, which are the nature of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, they say, is OK with their differences, as long as they all hold to the essentials. Hence, He does not contradict Himself.

Now, let’s say that reformer 4 comes along and teaches what they believe to be a different Gospel, or a different understanding of who God is. That person they would not consider a Christian, for he does not hold to the doctrines which are essential for a Christian to believe in order to be a genuine Christian. In this case, they claim, the Holy Spirit would reject reformer 4 as teaching a different Gospel and a different Jesus, as would they.

But isn’t this the same in the Catholic Church, albeit to a lesser degree? While matters of Church government might be considered essential doctrine, the perpetuity of spiritual gifts is apparently not. Here in the South Bend area of Indiana, where Purdue University resides, is what many believe to be the center of the Charismatic Catholic movement. There are Catholic priests speaking in tongues, and other Catholic priests interpreting what is said, in the unknown language, into English. These translated messages, the priests claim, are direct communication from God Himself to their parishes.

Now the bishop presiding over these parishes, and the Pope who is overseeing the bishop, do not condemn the practice. But there are many Catholics who might, and bishops who would never tolerate such practice in their own parishes. Would you say that, since there is such disagreement, that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself? Or would you say, as do i, that these are non-essentials over which Christians may disagree, but over which they should never divide. A Catholic from South Bend, and a Catholic from Rome, might have a lively debate about speaking in tongues, but afterward should go out for a pizza together. Don’t you think?



A Charismatic Catholic Mass

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Early believers, were not after Sola Scriptura. They were after the Apostles and their direct successors. They did not propose to build Christianity again from scratch, outside and against the apostolic church, but preserving Scriptures, without any sort of authority to do that. Or better , some would do that, committing Korah’s sin.

I mean there was a “destroying part” and a “building, positive part”. Reformers set out new CONtexts, IMHO. Not the original ones back. First, there was no NT in the apostolic time. There was, instead, the Apostolic Church, before a verse of the NT had been written. But if you go to the moment when the NT had been written and the Canon established by the Holy Spirit through the leadership of the Apostolic Church, the CONtext to read it was the Apostolic Church and her life. Not , say, Zwingli’s own personal judgment.

I believe Protestants do not hold to the Bible alone, either. At least, they recognized that God gives certain people the gift of teaching, and see the contributions of such men and women as extremely valuable. Some Protestants belong to denominations that even have their own traditions and cannons. So there are all three. But rather than all three supporting the doctrines of the Church, there teaching and the traditions lean on Scripture. Where tradition or teaching disagree with Scripture, the Protestant is to accept what the Bible says, and reject the contrary teaching or tradition. There are many Evangelical Christians, for example, who have left mainline denominations, such as Presbyterian and Methodist and Episcopalian, because the teaching and resulting traditions have strayed too far from the Bible on the essentials of the Christian Faith.

But did the early Christians give the Sacred Scriptures such supremacy over tradition? I think they did. As Pax pointed out, the early Church rejected the tradition of requiring circumcision. And did the early Christians give the Sacred Scriptures such supremacy over teaching? I believe they did, for we i find this historical example:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

(Acts 17:11)
The Bereans were of better character than other Christians, because they tested what even an Apostle said in the light of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

P7:

I’m afraid that if i keep replying to all of your posts, you’ll have a dozen to which to respond! I’ll be late for work, too.



BTW, how is your Internet connectivity issue? Was it a problem with your Internet Service Provider or Local Area Network trouble?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Here in the South Bend area of Indiana, where Purdue University resides …********

Sorry, i meant Notra Dame University.

 

[Thing]

I think they should be. Otherwise God would be contradicting Himself. That’s the roadblock i’ve come up against at this moment. And it’s as though i can nearly make out my destination beyond the barrier, but there’s a demon (or an angel; i know not which) dressed like a traffic cop, standing in front of my vehicle, and gesturing me to turn around and go back!

The road block is this: Reason and Sacred Scripture tell me the three should indeed be in harmony. But there is the apparent contradiction: The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition command that a bishop must not be, nor become, married if he wants to remain, or become, a bishop. Yet Paul indicates a bishop may be or become married, and that there is no sin in taking a wife, nor in sexual intimacy within marriage.

So what say you? Is this police officer demonic, or angelic? Is this a real contradiction, or only an apparent one?

http://www.curtispublishing.com/images/NonRockwell/9260605.jpg

St. Paul said that he did not command Bishops to be married his only wish was that they would not be married. St. Paul, the Bishop, was not married.
The Church decides that its clergy be unmarried. In agreement with St. Paul.
There may come a time in the future when the Vatican will be destroyed and 99% of Catholic clergy murdered. The remaining 1% will need to ordain priests and Bishops and if single men cannot be found then married men will be chosen. If the married men have families the Bishop or priest will have to try to divide up his time between caring for his family, preaching and teaching and administering sacraments to many more thousands of the now devastated flock than at present. He will also have to find time to work full time to earn money to keep his family. And probably he will have to do all this in complete secrecy as there is a price on his head and he will be shot on sight if he is known to be a Bishop.
In later more prosperous and peaceful times seminaries will again be built training men for the priesthood. There is much work to be done and the world is denuded of clergy. So men who are as yet unmarried, like Jesus Christ, are chosen for the task, as they have the ability to give all their time to ministering to the flock.
As conditions improve again and there are many priests and Bishops and the land prospers, life also becomes more complex. A priest is trained in 8 years, but to get a job in this world you need a PhD in Science or Communications Technology, Medicine, or in the Energy industry. So he is faced with full time work as a parish priest, a family to support, no income except the tiny amount the Church gives him to live on. He could go back to college for another 7 years full time to get qualifications which give him a chance of work. But the course is full time and he cannot be a full time parish priest and a full time student for 7 years and work full time to support a family.

Priesthood is a special calling, a vocation, and there are always people who can do it, if you cannot do it you should not become a priest. St. Paul was correct saying that he would prefer if the Bishops were unmarried.

 

[Pax]

I think they should be. Otherwise God would be contradicting Himself. That’s the roadblock i’ve come up against at this moment. And it’s as though i can nearly make out my destination beyond the barrier, but there’s a demon (or an angel; i know not which) dressed like a traffic cop, standing in front of my vehicle, and gesturing me to turn around and go back!

The road block is this: Reason and Sacred Scripture tell me the three should indeed be in harmony. But there is the apparent contradiction: The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition command that a bishop must not be, nor become, married if he wants to remain, or become, a bishop. Yet Paul indicates a bishop may be or become married, and that there is no sin in taking a wife, nor in sexual intimacy within marriage.

So what say you? Is this police officer demonic, or angelic? Is this a real contradiction, or only an apparent one?

http://www.curtispublishing.com/images/NonRockwell/9260605.jpg

Soc in Christ,

This is not a contradiction in so far as Paul made a local decision for the flock he shepherded. He did not make a universal declaration for the Church. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that this is a matter of faith and morals that represents permanence of doctrine. Instead, it is merely a discipline imposed by Paul. For it to have been universal it would have been something papal and or decided by all of the bishops/elders in council. I say this based upon the pattern seen in the book of Acts on the issue of circumcision.

It is also important to note that Paul actually “restricts” marriage for bishops under his charge. He says that they can be married only one time. If Paul can make this discipline, it seems to me that the Church can either relax that point and allow a widowed bishop to remarry, or make it stricter by saying that bishops cannot be married. One simply has to ask themselves a few simple questions. Is Paul the Church? Which has greater authority…Paul or the Church? Would Paul have had to give up his view on circumcision and conform it to the Church had the Council of Jerusalem decided that circumcision of gentiles was necessary?

Also consider other disciplines that Paul imposed. In 1 Cor 14:34-35 Paul says
that:

…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

He also says this1 Cor 11:5-6

…but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

Now it is interesting that Paul says that the OT Mosaic and Levitical laws no longer apply in the New Covenant of Christ, but he, nevertheless, binds the women in at least the Corinthian Churches not to speak in Church and that if they wish to ask something they should ask their husbands at home. He takes this prescription directly from the OT Law and binds it on his NT flock. Likewise, he binds the women in making them cover their heads which also comes out of the OT law.

It is important to note that when it comes to these disciplines that the Church can “bind” and the Church can “loose.” What is good and appropriate to “bind” at a certain point in time may be appropriately “loosed” at another point in time. Naturally, the reverse of this would be true as well. When it comes to disciplines they can be “bound or loosed” depending on the situation and the wisdom of the Church.

I hope this helps.

 

[Supliant]

The Church does not necessarily consider it a sin for a priest to be married, in fact, I know of a former Protestant minister, married, that was ordained a priest in my archdiocese. It is a rare event, but it does happen. I think that Thing is accurate in his description, and this is always how I’ve thought about the issue. It is not so much that the church does not allow her leaders to marry as it is that she doesn’t allow them to divide their lives and take on too many responsibilities.

A married man cannot, in good conscience, dedicate all of his time and energy to shepherding God’s flock, for that would mean abandoning his family. When the Church was first starting, there weren’t enough unmarried men to take up the role of the bishops, and so those who had already been married were able to receive that position, even though, as already said, Paul agreed that it was better that they be unmarried. In the passages that you have cited, it does not say that a bishop who was originally single should marry, only that those who were married could take on the position, and based on the other things that Paul has said, I would think that he would not want one of the leaders of the Church to willfully divide his energy in that way.

As the Church grew, and as time went on, there was more opportunity for the bishops and priests to remain celibate. If there were not enough single men in the pool to minister to Christ’s people, then sure, it is better to have a leader who has to raise and care for his family as well as lead, but as long as there are those who can spend their entire day being the leader, with no other responsibilities, then why would we want to change that?

I am not much of an apologist; in fact, I am only just now really exploring my faith. After reading this thread, I see that you are really looking for the truth Socrates, unlike far too many of us on both sides of the fence you are straddling. So I figure that by joining up with you guys, I might pick up some answers of my own, despite not knowing what questions I ask. Hope I can be as much help to you as you have been to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Notice: This post contains sexual language that might not be suitable for all readers.
Viewer discretion is advised.

---

I wouldn’t say Jesus would speak with ambiguity in the sense he wanted to create uncertainty. Would you ?. He does certainly permit His words being misunderstood. He permitted heresies on His own being to flourish for centuries, and people “chhosing” their own interpretations outside o within those of the Apostolic Church. . He later permitted Reformation, and the following explosion of conflicting scriptural interpretations. …

P7:

Sorry, could not resist posting one more reply. (And i hope most of all that you will take the time to reply to this one, as it interests me the most at the moment.)

In answer to your question i’d say, no, i would not. Please allow me to explain why not: In this country we had a President made famous because he made the passionate, public declaration, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman …” Later, he said that she did commit an act of oral sex, but that was not what he considered sexual relations. The thing is, there is little doubt that he knew that those listening to him would get the idea that he did not commit, or allow her to commit, any sexual act with him. In effect, he was guilty of deception.

Now to say that Jesus is not responsible to deceiving Protestants when He says this"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
instead of saying this"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon [you,]** this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
is like saying the President was not guilty of deception when he said this"I did not have sexual relations with that woman …"
instead of this"I did not have** [oral]** sexual relations with that woman …"

What makes the President’s comment unethical is that he *intentionally *deceived. So the questions i ask myself is thisid Jesus know that people would be deceived by His leaving out the word you?I can find no way of getting around answering yes. The deception was intentional. So i ask myselfid Jesus have a good reason to mislead?

I think i have the answer. But what do you think His reason might have been, P7?

 

[Eucharisted]

So, please convince me: Tell me why i should trust the authority of the Catholic Church.

Because Jesus loves you!

Okay, okay, I’ll stop being silly.

Truthfully, I encourage you to study history. Don’t ask Christias to do the research for you. Just study it on your own. If you have any questions about the history of Christianity, THAN ask questions. That way you’ll find the truth for yourself - by God’s grace - and you’ll get the help you need from Christians. Moreover, if you ever have any doubts, should you convert that is, you can go back to the history and reread, maybe even do more studying just to make sure it’s truly true. Doubts always come to Christians, it’s a test of faith, so if you convert, expect them. If you find the truth but find you can’t accept it, than ask yourself why you can’t accept it, and tell yourself you must accept the truth, because the truth is the truth or else nothing is true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

This is not a contradiction in so far as Paul made a local decision for the flock he shepherded. He did not make a universal declaration for the Church.

It sounds to me that Paul is making a universal declaration regarding the sinful nature of preventing people from marrying:The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry…

(1 Timothy 4:1-3)

When i consider who it is that forbids people to marry–the Magisterium, Bishops, and even the Pope, my mouth drops to the floor! What does he say of such people? He calls them those who:

• abandon the faith
• follow deceiving spirits
• advocate things taught by demons
• have their consciences seared with a hot iron

If he spoke publicly this way of the Pope today, would he not be removed from the office of Apostle? Would he not even risk excommunication? Be completely sincere with me Pax, and tell me what you truly think.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… It is also important to note that Paul actually “restricts” marriage for bishops under his charge. He says that they can be married only one time…

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife …

(1 Timothy 3:2)

I would not call his command a restriction; i’d call it common sense! No one in an unrepentant state of committing a sin should hold any office in the Church, much less the office of bishop. Or do you think that having more than one wife at a time (i.e., polygamy) is not a sin?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

St. Paul said that he did not command Bishops to be married his only wish was that they would not be married. St. Paul, the Bishop, was not married.
The Church decides that its clergy be unmarried. In agreement with St. Paul.
There may come a time in the future when the Vatican will be destroyed and 99% of Catholic clergy murdered. The remaining 1% will need to ordain priests and Bishops and if single men cannot be found then married men will be chosen. If the married men have families the Bishop or priest will have to try to divide up his time between caring for his family, preaching and teaching and administering sacraments to many more thousands of the now devastated flock than at present. He will also have to find time to work full time to earn money to keep his family. And probably he will have to do all this in complete secrecy as there is a price on his head and he will be shot on sight if he is known to be a Bishop.
In later more prosperous and peaceful times seminaries will again be built training men for the priesthood. There is much work to be done and the world is denuded of clergy. So men who are as yet unmarried, like Jesus Christ, are chosen for the task, as they have the ability to give all their time to ministering to the flock.
As conditions improve again and there are many priests and Bishops and the land prospers, life also becomes more complex. A priest is trained in 8 years, but to get a job in this world you need a PhD in Science or Communications Technology, Medicine, or in the Energy industry. So he is faced with full time work as a parish priest, a family to support, no income except the tiny amount the Church gives him to live on. He could go back to college for another 7 years full time to get qualifications which give him a chance of work. But the course is full time and he cannot be a full time parish priest and a full time student for 7 years and work full time to support a family.

Priesthood is a special calling, a vocation, and there are always people who can do it, if you cannot do it you should not become a priest. St. Paul was correct saying that he would prefer if the Bishops were unmarried.

I imagine there would be more priests if the Catholic Church did not forbid them to marry. With more priests in each parish, there would be fewer sheep among them for which to care, giving them more time to be with their families. I imagine priests would be able to make enough to care for a family if the parishioners would be asked to give twice–once for their priests, and once for the Church. If a married priest felt the parishioners gave him too much, he could rejoice in their generosity, taking only what his wife and children needed and giving the rest to the Church.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I am not much of an apologist; in fact, I am only just now really exploring my faith. After reading this thread, I see that you are really looking for the truth Socrates, unlike far too many of us on both sides of the fence you are straddling. So I figure that by joining up with you guys, I might pick up some answers of my own, despite not knowing what questions I ask. Hope I can be as much help to you as you have been to me.

Stick around, Supliant! You’ll learn a lot from Pax, P7, and others.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Because Jesus loves you!

Okay, okay, I’ll stop being silly.

So silly a kid can understand it. So deep a theologian can drown in it!

Truthfully, I encourage you to study history. Don’t ask Christias to do the research for you. Just study it on your own. If you have any questions about the history of Christianity, THAN ask questions. That way you’ll find the truth for yourself - by God’s grace - and you’ll get the help you need from Christians. Moreover, if you ever have any doubts, should you convert that is, you can go back to the history and reread, maybe even do more studying just to make sure it’s truly true. Doubts always come to Christians, it’s a test of faith, so if you convert, expect them. If you find the truth but find you can’t accept it, than ask yourself why you can’t accept it, and tell yourself you must accept the truth, because the truth is the truth or else nothing is true.

Eucharisted, do you believe a picture is worth a thousand words?