Protestants, did Jesus Christ gave us a Church with authority?

[guanophore]

This is certainly true in the Catholic church where doctrinal errors are embraced.

Since this is your opinion, why are you here? I thought the same thing in my anti-Catholic years…if there had been a CAF then, I might not have wandered in error for so long. I never understood what the Church really believed, and succumbed to lies.

I agree that doctrine plays a part. Matthew 18:15-20 has nothing to do with the formulation of doctrines. It is about church discipline. Acts 15 is an example of formulation of doctrine.

The two cannot be separated. The only persons qualified to perform discipline are those who are in union with the doctrines. What we see in Acts 15 are both working in harmony, which is how it has always been in the Catholic Church.

Most of the disciplinary actions that must be taken are over doctrinal issues. We also see this with Paul’s disciplinary steps with the Corinthian Church.

All of the corrections of Christ in the letters of Revelation relate to doctrinal errors.

Acts 15 would be an example of the formulation of doctrine and it is not about church discipline.

How do you explain the fact that all the Apostles were in union with one another? How do you explain the fact that a disciplinary letter was the result of the doctrinal formulation?

This is a classic example of your confusion with Scripture. If you had read the passage where Jesus prays for unity you would seen that unity is not based on the “Rock” but on unity-oneness He had with the Father. See John 17:21

Unity is based on Truth. Jesus prayed that they might be One in the Truth. He is the Truth. All doctrine that comes out of Him unifies. This is how we know that the Reformation doctrines are not from Him. They divided, and continue to divide. There is less and less unity, and more disunity.

Would you agree then that what unities all believers is not the pope or a church but it is those who believe Who Jesus is and what He came to do?

There is no distinction between them. The successor of Peter is the visible sign of the unity for which Christ prayed. All who are in unity with Christ are, by default, in unity with the successor of Peter. There is no distinction between the Rock that is Christ, the Rock that is the profession of faith, and the Rock that is Peter. All are in perfect unity.

Do you have a couple of examples what these denominations are quarrelling about?

Is that relevant to the topic? They quarrel because they have no unified authority, and everyone does what is right in his own eyes. Everyone perceives scripture differently, and they all read it according to their education (or lack therof) and life experiences. Some, like yourself, are fueled with massive anti-Catholic hostility and bigotry. These influences change how the scriptures are understood.

Scripture cannot exercise authority. It is not one of the qualities of the Holy Writings. Authority requires intellect and will. Therefore, everyone who claims to use scripture as the authority is really using their own intellect and will.

 

[guanophore]

I understand this to mean ‘not remarried after widowing’ rather than polygamy.

michel

It is true that a bishop must be celibate.

This is also a reference to serial polygamy - multiple spouses one at a time. If a person cannot sustain a marriage, it is unlikely that such a person will be able to sustain the priestly vows. It is an indication that a person bails out when there are relational problems, then tries to start over with a new partner.

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures don’t tell us the status of Paul.

They do. The Scripture is quite clear about Paul being celibate.

Paul was not a bishop so the requirement of being married would not apply to him.

ARe you saying Paul was not a leader? This is your constant accusation…

If leaders have to be married, then Paul is out of order, and so is Jesus.

The issue here is not single men being excluded by the Catholic church (they don’t) but they do exclude married men.

This is just a lie, ja4. It is not becoming to spread lies. The Catholic church ordains married persons to the priesthood and the diaconate.

Remember that bearing false witness against your neighbor is an act forbidden in the ten commandments.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What Catholics all too frequently forget is just how wicked the Catholic Church was pre Reformation.

God who is the same yesterday, today and forever took authority away when the religious rulers were wicked in Isreal. Why would He not do the same in the middle ages?
In fact it is clear that He did.

see 1Sam 4 and Ezekiel 34

i would agree that ML was a very wicked man. so was calvin and the others.

where do you find in the Bible that Jesus would take the authority of His Church and give to another?

you guys continue to find fault in the CC. that is fine. now go your ways and stop to arguing about it.

 

[Tomster]

You are incorrect. Jesus was fully man i.e. human and fully God. He had to be fully human so that He could pay the price for our sins. Secondly He was also fully human in that He got hungry and tired and knew the limitations of being a man. If He was a divine person He would not have shared in our humanity nor have our physical limitations as a human.

The doctrine of the Incarnation is the true test of the disciples of Jesus Christ. “The Word,” that is the eternal Son of God, “was made flesh,” without ceasing to be God. He is God from all eternity; when born in Bethlehem of His Blessed Mother He is eternal years old. He took upon Himself our human nature and was made man, that is the Person of the Eternal Son was clothed in our humanity. The countenance that gazed upon the faces of men while He dwelt among them, was the face of God; the finger that opened the ear of the deaf was the finger of God; the feet that Mary kissed were the feet of God; the hands that were bound with cords were the hands of God; the hands and the feet that were nailed upon the Cross were the hands and feet of God; the blood that was shed for the redemption of the world was the blood of God; and the heart that was pierced upon the Cross was the heart of God; because the whole humanity which the Eternal Word assumed was the humanity of God.

Are we agreed on these points?

 

[Tomster]

Where to begin?

Some believe in Consubstatiation - most other denominations believe it’s only symbolic.

Some believe in Baptismal regeneration - most others don’t.

**Some believe that works **are necessary - others don’t.

Some believe in predestination - others don’t.

Some are dispensationalists - others aren’t.

Shall I go on?

We could go forever on this one. What justaking4 either doesn’t understand or will not admit is that the Western world, the world formerly denominated Christian, has forsworn Christianity in the Person of the Incarnate Word, and has attempted to implement a culture without a spiritual or moral foundation. The informing Principle of Christianity was, and will ever be, the abiding Reality of our Lord wholly and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament. In the 16th century, Protestantism arose and attempted to reconstruct Christianity without the Papacy the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: thus religion changed instantly and internally, in all of its aspects, in its very substance and its constituent parts. In that instant of denial, change, distortion and reform, religion became a new thing, a complete departure from the Word made Flesh, wholly divorced from the Fount of grace and His vicar on earth. Once change was introduced into the order of truth and grace, it became the indespensable constituent part of the new religion, its vital principle, its Hegelian dogma, the well from which its destructive vitality was derived. Once set in motion, change followed upon change in an unintermittent process of contradiction, until the original, the prototype, the immutable, was lost, and mutation became the operating principle of religion.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4265681]
So celibacy is not a bad or wrong thing, right?

The issue is not about celibacy per se but is it required for church leadership as the Roman rite demands.

Actually, Paul tells us his status in 1 Cor 7:
7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

I don’t see Paul claiming that he is not married in this passage.

And Timothy was a Bishop.

What passage makes you say this?

But the verse you produced does not say that a man must be married, or has to be married; neither is there a command that says it is wrong for celibacy to be required of priests.

Not so. One of the indicators for a leader is how well he manages his children. An unmarried-never married man cannot pass this test.

Actually, all this discussion of a practice of the Church (not a doctrine) is much ado about nothing.

Actually this is a substantial issue since it goes to the heart of church leadership and what it is to be in light of the Scriptures. By shutting out married men from being bishops is a clear rejection of the Scriptures teachings.

If you are/were married, I’m certain you exchanged rings (a practice) which is neither condoned nor condemned in Scripture.

The Scriptures don’t say one way or another about this.

 

[justasking4]

elvisman;4264728]**"
Originally Posted by justasking4
Each of these topics deserve there own treatment. However, is there complete agreement in the Catholic church on everything?
For example has the Catholic church offically interpreted the creation days in Genesis 1 as being a literal 24 hour day or long ages? Or is Mary the medatrix of all graces?

What is the offical postion of these issues?

elvisman
Deserve their own treatment**"??
What does that mean? This is nonsense.

My point was that each of these things need some study so we can determine which may be true in regards to their position.

**Whether or not a day in Genesis **was 24 hours or 24 years is not a doctrinal issue. It’s certainly not as heavy as the Eucharist, sola fide or baptismal regeneration, is it?

These are just examples to demonstrate that the Catholic church has lots and lots of differences about important matters as in Protestant churches. Since there are differences in Protestant churches that leads to doctrinal chaos the same principle holds in the Catholic church since it to has a wide range of difference on important issues and beliefs.

**
**As for Catholics who don’t ****adhere to or believe in Catholic doctrines - they’re just Protestants now, aren’t they?

Do you know everything your church teaches? Do you interpret everything that your church teaches correctly?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4265950]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The issue here is not single men being excluded by the Catholic church (they don’t) but they do exclude married men.

guanophore
This is just a lie, ja4. It is not becoming to spread lies. The Catholic church ordains married persons to the priesthood and the diaconate.

Remember that bearing false witness against your neighbor is an act forbidden in the ten commandments.

Can a married Roman Catholic man become a priest or bishop with children?

 

[Mickey]

Can a married Roman Catholic man become a priest or bishop?

No.

 

[AliciaCL]

An observation. Non-Catholics today suffer from a lack of the full faith. It is not their fault. They are sincere. They reflect what they have been taught all their lives from their families, church communities, etc. Their truncated Christian beliefs are a powerful analogy to the impact sin can have on others, like original sin stained all mankind forever. Non-Catholics are innocent yet they inherited and endure a kind of partial-Christianity and deeply believe they are right. They are right – partially. It seems only those who undertake detailed theological and historical studies and some who are graced with faith, eventually convert to the Catholic faith. It is very very difficult to have true inter-faith dialogue which doesn’t get testy. We in the RCC must remember that they are committed to their beliefs. We must be more gentle in explaining things to them, and telling them we understand their anger, distrust, etc. Another analogy, it’s a bit like trying to explain to a given group in society that they have been used and abuse politically for years by a certain political party, and convince them to switch sides. It’s a difficult, long term task. There is a kind of realization of betrayal in the religious and political situations.

 

[guanophore]

The issue is not about celibacy per se but is it required for church leadership as the Roman rite demands.

This is a mischaracterization, ja4. Celibacy is considered by the Latin rite, as all the Catholic Rites, a gift of God. Gifts from God cannot be “demanded” in any way, shape, or form. The Latin Rite prefers to choose for priests those who have received this gift.

I don't see Paul claiming that he is not married in this passage.

What do you think he means when he says “I wish all were as I am”?

What passage makes you say this?

There are many passages that attest to the bishopric of Timothy. There remains today a line of bishops in the East that came from Timothy.

Not so. One of the indicators  for a  leader is how well he manages his children. An unmarried-never married man cannot pass this test.

This is true. However, it is not required to pass this test in order to be a leader.

Actually this is a substantial issue since it goes to the heart of church leadership and what it is to be in light of the Scriptures. By shutting out married men from being bishops is a clear rejection of the Scriptures teachings.

Well, we read them differently. I hope you are shutting out all the women who speak in Church, or show up without a veil!

The Scriptures don’t say one way or another about this.

This is true. The exchange of rings is a Catholic tradition which has been retained by many Protestants who did not know that it should be rejected because it was Catholic.

Imagine, engaging in a ritual that scriptures dont’ mention!

My point was that each of these things need some study so we can determine which may be true in regards to their position.

This is where your approach departs from the biblical standard. Scripture is clear that the truth is received from those to which it was entrusted. Those who spurn this, and rely on their own studies will have a much more difficult time finding truth.

These are just examples to demonstrate that the Catholic church has lots and lots of differences about important matters as in Protestant churches.

This is certainly a true statement!

Since there are differences in Protestant churches that leads to doctrinal chaos the same principle holds in the Catholic church since it to has a wide range of difference on important issues and beliefs.

No, this is not true. Although individuals attached to the Church may have differences, there is one faith held by the Church that was received by the Apostles.

Do you know everything your church teaches? Do you interpret everything that your church teaches correctly?

Most assuredly not. I am convinced that I will not master it in my lifetime. Just a brief visit to the Vatican website and looking at all the documents is overwhelming.

 

[guanophore]

Can a married Roman Catholic man become a priest or bishop with children?

Sure. This was done in previous times. The current discipline, however, is that the Church chooses for priests an bishops from among those who have received the gift of celibacy. It can change, but I don’t foresee it happening any time soon.

 

[Mickey]

Non-Catholics today suffer from a lack of the full faith.

The Holy Orthodox Church would say that Catholics “suffer from a lack of the full faith”.

 

[Mickey]

Sure. This was done in previous times. The current discipline, however, is that the Church chooses for priests an bishops from among those who have received the gift of celibacy. It can change, but I don’t foresee it happening any time soon.

Then your answer should be “no”. He did not ask you what has happened in the past.

 

[Tomster]

The Holy Orthodox Church would say that Catholics “suffer from a lack of the full faith”.

Would the Holy Orthodox Church say that or are you just saying that?

 

[guanophore]

Then your answer should be “no”. He did not ask you what has happened in the past.

I have been around this bush many times previously with ja4. He is failing to distinguish between a discipline, and a doctrine of the faith. He is accusing that the Latin Rite, by choosing from among those called to celibacy for the priesthood is acting contrary to scripture, which he understands to require that a “leader” be married, have children, and manage his household well.

There are married priests in the Catholic Church, so his accusation is spurious.

 

[Mickey]

Would the Holy Orthodox Church say that or are you just saying that?

I suppose that would be me. My apologies. Alicia provoked me.

Holy Orthodoxy would only say that they know that the fullness of faith is in the Holy Orthodox Church. They would not chime in on where there is not a fullness of faith.

 

[Mickey]

I have been around this bush many times previously with ja4. He is failing to distinguish between a discipline, and a doctrine of the faith. He is accusing that the Latin Rite, by choosing from among those called to celibacy for the priesthood is acting contrary to scripture, which he understands to require that a “leader” be married, have children, and manage his household well.

There are married priests in the Catholic Church, so his accusation is spurious.

I see. I agree with you.

One discipline (Latin Catholic) mimicks St Paul (celibacy). And another discipline (Eastern Catholics and Orthodox) mimicks St Peter and other Apostles (married).

 

[Tomster]

I suppose that would be me. My apologies. Alicia provoked me.

Holy Orthodoxy would only say that they know that the fullness of faith is in the Holy Orthodox Church. They would not chime in on where there is not a fullness of faith.

Has Holy Orthodoxy ever made any official statements regarding Protestantism?

Apology accepted.