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

[Mickey]

Has Holy Orthodoxy ever made any official statements regarding Protestantism?

What do you mean by official? I have seen various apologetics refuting the strange doctrines of some protestant denominations. I have even seen statements referring to the Roman Catholic Church as the oldest protestant Church.

But mostly, there are not many statements regarding the heterodox.

 

[justasking4]

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.

You cannot have a discipline without a doctrine. Discipline is the outworking of doctrine and belief.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Can a married Roman Catholic man become a priest or bishop with children?

guanophore
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.

Until it does the church is rejecting the inspired-inerrant Scriptures on this.

 

[cazayoux]

You cannot have a discipline without a doctrine. Discipline is the outworking of doctrine and belief.

[buzzer sound]
Where do you get this?

So YOU will define ‘discipline’ for us and tell us, based on YOUR definition, that we are doing something wrong.

There is a term for this … straw man.

The vow of celibacy for most priests in the West is only a discipline, a practice.
The Church can change this tomorrow if it so decided.

Doctrine, on the other hand, cannot change.
An example of this would be not allowing females to be ordained as priests.

michel

 

[Tomster]

What do you mean by official? I have seen various apologetics refuting the strange doctrines of some protestant denominations. I have even seen statements referring to the Roman Catholic Church as the oldest protestant Church.

But mostly, there are not many statements regarding the heterodox.

Why hasn’t Holy Orthodoxy made statements regarding the heterodox? How are members of Holy Orthodoxy supposed to distinguish between orthodox doctrine and heterodox doctrine? In other words, is there some authoritative body within Holy Orthodoxy empowered to make decisions on these matters and bind the consciences of the faithful?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[cazayoux]

Until it does the church is rejecting the inspired-inerrant Scriptures on this.

I understand that you think it is rejecting, not the inspired-inerrant scriptures, but your fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture.

The verse you are reading does not say a bishop or deacon MUST be married.

michel

 

[Mickey]

Why hasn’t Holy Orthodoxy made statements regarding the heterodox?

There have been statements on the faith–seven Ecumenical Councils. Protestanism is a condition that arose from the West. It does not concern Holy Orthodoxy.

We have the fullness of faith and we thank God for it.

Peace and blessings

 

[justasking4]

I understand that you think it is rejecting, not the inspired-inerrant scriptures, but your fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture.

The verse you are reading does not say a bishop or deacon MUST be married.

michel

The mere fact your church rejects married catholic men from becoming bishops is a rejection of the Scriptures. The Roman rite puts a barrier before married catholic men to become bishops.

Secondly, the Scriptures also do not endorse single men to be bishops.

Third, since you are not infallible you to have a fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture since your church has not infallibly interpreted these passages as far as i know.

 

[Mickey]

In other words, is there some authoritative body within Holy Orthodoxy empowered to make decisions

The Holy Spirit!

 

[cazayoux]

The mere fact your church rejects married catholic men from becoming bishops is a rejection of the Scriptures. The Roman rite puts a barrier before married catholic men to become bishops.

Still reading something into the scripture that isn’t there.

Secondly, the Scriptures also do not endorse single men to be bishops.

The scripture does not say single men need not apply.

Third, since you are not infallible you to have a fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture…

Exactly … so the best we can do is a draw and each think we have the right interpretation. So now what do we do?

My fallible interpretation is that the ‘one wife’ means not remarried after being widowed, rather than polygamy. It is in no way disqualifies single men.
What does scripture say about marrying or not marrying when called to Christ? Paul says if not married, to stay not married. Your interpretation of the marriage requirement goes against this.
Do you honestly think that all of the apostles were married? Realize that their position is referred to as a ‘bishopric’ in Acts 1?
Even Peter, who has a mother in law, isn’t proven as currently married. (widowed possibly?)
And what DOES scripture say about those that are widowed … there is a different answer for young and old. For old, stay as you are … but by your measure this disqualifies them for an office.
What if a married man is holding an office (bishop or deacon) and then loses his wife (till death do you part … no longer married)? Is he now disqualified from the position he already holds?

We must look at all of scripture … not just one verse and draw what we want from it.
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

michel

 

[cfrancis]

The issue is not about celibacy per se but is it required for church leadership as the Roman rite demands…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 a curious response. It appears you are contradicting yourself, based on previous answers.
I asked in post #81:

You replied in post #84:

No.

I’m saying that the Catholic church disqualifies a married man from consideration just because he is married. Secondly, Paul does not make the case here where he speaks of church leadership directly for a single man to be a bishop. If single men were to qualiffy this would be the place to find it. However its not even mentioned.
So, based on your post in #107. you are saying only married men can be bishops?
To clear this up, can a single man be a bishop?

I posted 1 Cor 7 to show Paul was not married:

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.

To which you replied:

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

Perhaps I should have added v9:
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
So, put together:
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
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why would Paul place the caveat, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry” if he himself was married? Such would render the passage incoherent:
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I [let them remained married, by your assumption, which is difficult for the unmarried and widows]
But if they [unmarried and widows] do not have self-control, let them [unmarried and widows] marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion
I believe 1 Cor 7 reveals Paul was not married.

I then stated:

And Timothy was a Bishop.

To which you replied:

What passage makes you say this?

Aside from Christian history, the beginning of 1 Tim 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
Paul is writing to Timothy. First, why Timothy, if he is not in a position of leadership? Second, the only way Timothy could confer the authority and position of bishop is if he is either at the same level (bishop) or higher.
Look as 1 Tim 5:
17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, “)YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
How does Timothy have authority over the elders unless he is higher in authority than them. It’s the same way Timothy received his office.

A clear reading of 1 Tim 3 does not exclude single and celibate men from leadership in the Church; neither does it make marriage a requirement; neither does it prohibit a more strenuous criteria.

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

cazayoux;4267897]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The mere fact your church rejects married catholic men from becoming bishops is a rejection of the Scriptures. The Roman rite puts a barrier before married catholic men to become bishops.

cazayoux
Still reading something into the scripture that isn’t there.

Thats what Roman catholics are doing when they disqualify married men from becoming bishops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, the Scriptures also do not endorse single men to be bishops.
cazayoux
The scripture does not say single men need not apply.

Where do the Scriptures say single men are to be bishops?

Quote:

Originally Posted by justasking4
Third, since you are not infallible you to have a fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture…

cazayoux
Exactly … so the best we can do is a draw and each think we have the right interpretation. So now what do we do?

My fallible interpretation is that the ‘one wife’ means not remarried after being widowed, rather than polygamy. It is in no way disqualifies single men.

The passage in I Timothy 3 for example says nothing of polygamy, nor of being widowed. Rather it is saying that the qualifications would include a married man who has children and how well he manages his household.

What does scripture say about marrying or not marrying when called to Christ?

It doesn’t.

Paul says if not married, to stay not married. Your interpretation of the marriage requirement goes against this

.
Were not discussing marriage per se but what are the qualifications for a bishop. He is to be married and have children.

Do you honestly think that all of the apostles were married?

We know Peter was and he was a leader in the church.

Realize that their position is referred to as a ‘bishopric’ in Acts 1?
Even Peter, who has a mother in law, isn’t proven as currently married. (widowed possibly?)

And what DOES scripture say about those that are widowed … there is a different answer for young and old. For old, stay as you are … but by your measure this disqualifies them for an office.
What if a married man is holding an office (bishop or deacon) and then loses his wife (till death do you part … no longer married)? Is he now disqualified from the position he already holds?

These are things that would need to be worked out. The fact is that the Roman catholic church disqualifies married men from being a bishop just because they are married. This goes against the clear teaching of the apostle.

We must look at all of scripture … not just one verse and draw what we want from it.
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

I agree. We must also keep the context as determining what a passage means and from it draw our doctrines.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4268039]

Originally Posted by justasking4
No. I’m saying that the Catholic church disqualifies a married man from consideration just because he is married. Secondly, Paul does not make the case here where he speaks of church leadership directly for a single man to be a bishop. If single men were to qualiffy this would be the place to find it. However its not even mentioned.
cfrancis
So, based on your post in #107. you are saying only married men can be bishops?
To clear this up, can a single man be a bishop?

I know of no passage in Scripture that says he can.

I posted 1 Cor 7 to show Paul was not married:

Quote:
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.

To which you replied:

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

Perhaps I should have added v9:
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
So, put together:
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
9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Why would Paul place the caveat, “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry” if he himself was married? Such would render the passage incoherent:
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I [let them remained married, by your assumption, which is difficult for the unmarried and widows]
But if they [unmarried and widows] do not have self-control, let them [unmarried and widows] marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion

I believe 1 Cor 7 reveals Paul was not married.

What i see in this passage is Paul exhorting self control in relation to sexual passions. He uses himself as an example of one who has self control. Secondly in I Corinthians 9:5 he implies he does have a wife.

I then stated:

Quote:
And Timothy was a Bishop.

To which you replied:

Quote:
What passage makes you say this?

Aside from Christian history, the beginning of 1 Tim 3:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
Paul is writing to Timothy. First, why Timothy, if he is not in a position of leadership? Second, the only way Timothy could confer the authority and position of bishop is if he is either at the same level (bishop) or higher.
Look as 1 Tim 5:
17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, “)YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.
22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
How does Timothy have authority over the elders unless he is higher in authority than them. It’s the same way Timothy received his office.

i have no problem that he may have been a bishop later but its certainly not clear in Scripture that he was since Scripture never refers to him as such.

A clear reading of 1 Tim 3 does not exclude single and celibate men from leadership in the Church; neither does it make marriage a requirement; neither does it prohibit a more strenuous criteria.

Not so. There would not be much of a problem here if the Roman catholic church stops married men from being bishops for the mere fact they are married. This is the main issue and one that show the church in violation of the Scripture.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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

If I were a protestant, I’d say “No!”.

Why? Because (to a protestant) there is NO absolute authority over any realm concerned WITH authority other than Jesus, who speaks to me alone.

My “Holy Spirit” inspired conscience, being infallible, or at least sufficiently “infallible” to never let me be TOO evil-doing, is the only authority I need to obey.

Of course, if it turns out that my conscience IS so woefully fallible as to allow me to be truly evil, then I’m just not one of God’s “elect” and was always doomed to hell for “just being me” anyway.

It’s all a matter of personal “perspective” and conscience. It’s all relative. I (as a protestant [which I’m not really!]) have to be relativistic, because everyone has the same relative “infallibility” that I do.

Diversity in doctrine is to the Glory of God! Belief in Christ IS a “market of ideas”, after all!

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

If I were a protestant, I’d say “No!”.

Why? Because (to a protestant) there is NO absolute authority over any realm concerned WITH authority other than Jesus, who speaks to me alone.

My “Holy Spirit” inspired conscience, being infallible, or at least sufficiently “infallible” to never let me be TOO evil-doing, is the only authority I need to obey.

Of course, if it turns out that my conscience IS so woefully fallible as to allow me to be truly evil, then I’m just not one of God’s “elect” and was always doomed to hell for “just being me” anyway.

It’s all a matter of personal “perspective” and conscience. It’s all relative. I (as a protestant [which I’m not really!]) have to be relativistic, because everyone has the same relative “infallibility” that I do.

Diversity in doctrine is to the Glory of God! Belief in Christ IS a “market of ideas”, after all!

This is a demonstration of why it’s bad to reply on someone else’s behalf. Since you don’t actually hold their views, you wind up creating a strawman of their beliefs which you can reject out of hand.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is a demonstration of why it’s bad to reply on someone else’s behalf. Since you don’t actually hold their views, you wind up creating a strawman of their beliefs which you can reject out of hand.

Quite so!

Where do you disagree with what I’ve said, though?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Jesus founded a Church, not an institution of man-made doctrines and dogmas. Huge difference.

What is a Church, in your opinion?

If a Church has no dogmas or doctrines, what does it have?

 

[M0nkey]

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

I’ll admit that I don’t have the full answer on this one. If any fellow Catholic would like to jump in that would be helpful. But, I think that you would need dispensation from the bishop of Rome. Celibate priesthood is not an infallible doctrine of the Church, which means this can change at any time.

One thing I do know is that the Church prefers single people to be the shepherds of Christ’s Church. Married men have a different calling to their spouse and families than to serve the Church. Although it is possible to be ordained deacon.

In fact, a good number of early disciples were celibate, since they gave everything up to follow Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

You cannot have a discipline without a doctrine. Discipline is the outworking of doctrine and belief.

I agree, which means your efforts to separate church discipline from doctrine are worthless.

The disciplinary practice of the Latin Rite in choosing for priests from among those who are given the gift of celibacy is based on the Teachings of Jesus and St. Paul about the value of the celibate life.

Until it does the church is rejecting the inspired-inerrant Scriptures on this.

No, ja4. What it means is that the authority appointed by Christ for the Church, acting through the Apostolic Succession, properly distinguished those scriptures that were referring to doctrine, and those that were referring to disciplines. This is the same reason that women are allowed to speak in Catholic Churches, and don’ t have to wear a veil.

The mere fact your church rejects married catholic men from becoming bishops is a rejection of the Scriptures.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since you are reading them in separation from the Sacred Tradition that produced them. Since all you have of the teachings of Paul is what you see in the Scripture, there is no way for you to know how his traditions were practiced outside of the “book”.

The Roman rite puts a barrier before married catholic men to become bishops.

No, they just recognize that Latin Rite men who are called to the sacrament of marriage are not also called to the sacrament of Holy Orders at the level of priest and bishop.

Secondly, the Scriptures also do not endorse single men to be bishops.

Well, we read them differently!

Third, since you are not infallible you to have a fallible-errant understanding of that inspired-inerrant scripture since your church has not infallibly interpreted these passages as far as i know.

A point which is irrelevant, since you reject all the infallible proclamations of the Church anyway.

Tell me, ja4, by what authority do you reject the commandments of the scriptures with regard to women’s hair styles? Have you permitted any of the women in your life to cut their hair? Do you make sure they wear a veil in church?

 

[guanophore]

Thats what Roman catholics are doing when they disqualify married men from becoming bishops.

Such a statement reveals a major thinking error. The bishoprick is not a “right” to which one is automatically qualified. No one has a “right” to the sacrament of Holy Orders, at any level.

The Roman Rite recognizes that men who are called to marriage have a full time vocation, and prefers to call to the service of the Church those who have received the gift of celibacy, so that their attention will not be divided. These are the persons of which Jesus says they “make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”.

" I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord." 1 Cor 7:32-35

These qualifications for leadership are just as important as those about a married man keeping his house in order.

Where do the Scriptures say single men are to be bishops?

This passage above states the value of the unmarried state. Paul also demonstrated this value throughout his own celibate life, as did Jesus. In appointing Timothy, Paul did not use the requirement of marriage and children. Timothy was the youngest bishop of the Apostolic age, not even old enough to be a rabbi.

The passage in I Timothy 3 for example says nothing of polygamy, nor of being widowed. Rather it is saying that the qualifications would include a married man who has children and how well he manages his household.

All these things are true about managing a household well. If man is married, this is an important point to consider.

1 Tim 3:1-7
“The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way — 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.” 1 Tim 3:1-7

It doesn’t.

What do you think Paul is talking about, then, when he is speaking about the married or unmarried state of persons when they become Christians?

Were not discussing marriage per se but what are the qualifications for a bishop. He is to be married and have children.

If this is your wish, have at it!

You are not under any requirement to submit to the disciplines of the Latin Rite.

We know Peter was and he was a leader in the church.

This is one of the reasons that the Latin Rite allows married priests as well.

These are things that would need to be worked out. The fact is that the Roman catholic church disqualifies married men from being a bishop just because they are married. This goes against the clear teaching of the apostle.

No, ja4, one cannot be "disqualified"for something in which a person has no eligiblity in the first place. I can’t be disqualified for a race in which I am not running, or a lottery where I don’t hold a ticket. There is no “right” or automatic eligibility for becoming a bishop in the Latin Rite. The Church calls those to service whom she approves, and they choose whether or not they will answer the call.

I agree. We must also keep the context as determining what a passage means and from it draw our doctrines.

Yes, and the context of the NT is the catholic church. It is written by, for, and about Catholics. That is why it reflects, 100% Catholic belief and practice.