second question for our non-catholic brethern

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11406552] The way I read it is that Bishops can be unmarried or married, but if they are married it needs to be inline with Jesus’ teachings. Now, does the RC allow Bishops to marry? Maybe I missed that change in teaching?

In parts of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I know that priests can be married, though I am unsure of bishops. Priestly celibacy is limited to the Latin Rite, and not the case in other Rites. Further, it is a discipline, and not a doctrine, and therefore does not violate the scriptural reference. Men choose the priesthood knowing full well the disciple in the Latin Rite.

“Ministerial priesthood” is not taught in scripture as defined by the RC. What is taught are different positions to be filled in the different local communities of believers. The roles, titles, duties and authorities I see taught in scripture don’t line up with RC teaching as a whole. If we look at the title “priest” specifically, again, that applies to all believers in Jesus (literally all of us are in Christ), as does the word “saint.” We are part of the priesthood, with all the privileges thereof. We don’t need a bridge between God and man, we already have one.

All of the early Church seems to believe differently, that there is no need for a ministerial priesthood. The ministerial priesthood grows out of the Priesthood of all Believers. The role of the clergy is to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why do you interpret it that way? Because the RC does?

Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

So there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In parts of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I know that priests can be married, though I am unsure of bishops. Priestly celibacy is limited to the Latin Rite, and not the case in other Rites. Further, it is a discipline, and not a doctrine, and therefore does not violate the scriptural reference. Men choose the priesthood knowing full well the disciple in the Latin Rite.

All of the early Church seems to believe differently, that there is no need for a ministerial priesthood. The ministerial priesthood grows out of the Priesthood of all Believers. The role of the clergy is to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

Jon

And all God’s people say, “Amen.”

Do you hear what your Protestant brother is saying, Kliska?

 

[JonNC]

And all God’s people say, “Amen.”

Do you hear what your Protestant brother is saying, Kliska?

Jon

 

[Kliska]

In parts of the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I know that priests can be married, though I am unsure of bishops. Priestly celibacy is limited to the Latin Rite, and not the case in other Rites. Further, it is a discipline, and not a doctrine, and therefore does not violate the scriptural reference. Men choose the priesthood knowing full well the disciple in the Latin Rite.

Pardon me for being honest, but that is a cop out. I do understand the difference between a discipline and a doctrine, but arguing semantics on something I consider a line-drawing fallacy is one reason I don’t find the teachings… truthful. The scriptures show plainly that priests can be married, and in fact should be if they cannot be well and truly chaste.

I believe there are all too many worldly reasons that celibacy for priests is pushed by the RC, and I don’t see those reasons as being inline with scripture, hence some of the problems we can plainly see in some of those in the formal “priesthood.”

All of the early Church seems to believe differently,

I disagree. I see support for roles, but not the kind ascribed by the RC. I read the scripture and don’t see Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc… in agreement with those teachings. The “priesthood” is unnecessary.

The role of the clergy is to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

Preach the word, yes. Sacraments, no. I see no scriptural support of the idea of a physical vehicle of grace.

Do you hear what your Protestant brother is saying, Kliska?

No, as I’m reading words on a screen, but I do see what he is saying. Are we in agreement? No, though he and I are in more agreement than me and Rome.

 

[JonNC]

=Kliska;11406683]Pardon me for being honest, but that is a cop out. I do understand the difference between a discipline and a doctrine, but arguing semantics on something I consider a line-drawing fallacy is one reason I don’t find the teachings… truthful. The scriptures show plainly that priests can be married, and in fact should be if they cannot be well and truly chaste.

I didn’t say I agree with it, but as the son of a Lutheran pastor, I do understand it. Your last line, which I bolded, speaks to discipline.

I disagree. I see support for roles, but not the kind ascribed by the RC. I read the scripture and don’t see Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc… in agreement with those teachings. The “priesthood” is unnecessary.

Preach the word, yes. Sacraments, no. I see no scriptural support of the idea of a physical vehicle of grace.

And that’s why you don’t see a need for the priesthood, because you don’t see the idea of the mean of grace in the sacraments. I understand that.

No, as I’m reading words on a screen, but I do see what he is saying. Are we in agreement? No, though he and I are in more agreement than me and Rome.

On the grounds of the single issue of the sacraments alone, I am in more agreement with Rome than I am with your position. Honestly, I would be Catholic before I would join most any other protestant communion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, as I’m reading words on a screen, but I do see what he is saying.

And you keep asking* me* about semantics?

 

[Kliska]

I didn’t say I agree with it, but as the son of a Lutheran pastor, I do understand it. Your last line, which I bolded, speaks to discipline. And that’s why you don’t see a need for the priesthood, because you don’t see the idea of the mean of grace in the sacraments. I understand that.

On the grounds of the single issue of the sacraments alone, I am in more agreement with Rome than I am with your position. Honestly, I would be Catholic before I would join most any other protestant communion.

And here I was just getting ready to say that if I held the Lutheran view of the sacraments, priesthood, etc… I’d see no reason to stop at the Tiber.

And you keep asking* me* about semantics?

It was a joke, yeesh. :doh2:

 

[JonNC]

And here I was just getting ready to say that if I held the Lutheran view of the sacraments, priesthood, etc… I’d see no reason to stop at the Tiber.

Well, there’s other things. For me its ecclesiology (power and primacy of the pope), for other Lutherans it remains soteriology. Speaking for me only, these are not nearly the obstacles that denial of sacraments, perseverance of saints, limited atonement, etc. are.
It seems that you understand that by your statement.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Well, there’s other things. For me its ecclesiology (power and primacy of the pope), for other Lutherans it remains soteriology. Speaking for me only, these are not nearly the obstacles that denial of sacraments, perseverance of saints, limited atonement, etc. are.
It seems that you understand that by your statement.

Jon

I do. I’m no Calvinist so don’t go in for limited atonement, perseverance of saints (though I do believe in a form of OSAS), unconditional election, or irresistible grace, I also have a mixed view of “total depravity.”

Yes, all those things such as sacramentalism, the priesthood, soteriology, etc… are all tied in together. I am firmly in the 5 solas camp, so if I hear something being taught that is against scripture, I can’t agree with it, nor would I think any priest or pastor from any church would urge me to do so.

 

[jmcrae]

Why do you interpret it that way? Because the RC does?

Because the Early Church (the people to whom the letter was written) did. They ordained a great many unmarried men to be Bishops (St. Ambrose, for example, and St. Augustine), but they never ordained anyone who had been married to more than one wife, either serially or at the same time.

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;11404618]Good evening PJM. I have read your thread with great interest, and I have a few questions for you if I may. Firstly, are you asking Protestant readers on the forum to defend the legitimacy of the churches they belong to by means of affirming or denying authority based on apostolic succession? I will have some follow on questions.

Thank you,
Gary

Hi Gary

That’s pretty much is what I’m after. I’m not sure that is a precise position; but close enough to discuss.

I’ll look forward to your other questions.

God Bless you!

Patrick

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Gary

That’s pretty much is what I’m after. I’m not sure that is a precise position; but close enough to discuss.

I’ll look forward to your other questions.

God Bless you!

Patrick

Hi Patrick: Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned, I have some follow on questions. I have not had occasion to have a discussion with protestants on this matter. I do have some basic knowledge of The Reformation, but I was wondering if you could enumerate the basic objections that Protestants have to the idea of apostolic succession and the papacy. I know there are some theological differences, but what is the objection to the papacy?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Hockeygurl]

Quote: Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

Must, no. But we all have to agree according to scripture a biship CAN be married. How many bishops are married today? What would happen if one of them wanted to get married? It is certainly not forbidden in scripture. Would a Catholic Bishop who married be allowed to stay a bishop?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is a discipline voluntarily accepted. Because a man chooses to make a vow of celibacy when he enters the priesthood, he may not break that vow later when he meets a special lady.

In other rites of the Catholic Church, priests are allowed to be married. Additionally, married priests from non-Catholic churches (Anglican, for example) MAY be accepted as priests in the Catholic Church, also, but this is on a case by case basis at the discretion of the bishop.

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;11407905]Hi Patrick: Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned, I have some follow on questions. I have not had occasion to have a discussion with protestants on this matter. I do have some basic knowledge of The Reformation, but I was wondering if you could enumerate the basic objections that Protestants have to the idea of apostolic succession and the papacy. I know there are some theological differences, but what is the objection to the papacy?

Thanks,
Gary

SURE

But what is the critical issue here, is not Peter; but the Authority of the CC Herself. Peter’s is the “escape goat.” Peter is the “EFFECT” not the “CAUSE” which IS Christ and his Devine [and very often clear and precise teachings] that are nevertheless ignored or misrepresented.

Luke 22:31 "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren

If Christ did NOT choose Peter; then two possibilities would exist.

1. Christ did not choose any leadership so Protestants are thereby “justified” in founding faiths competing with the CC.
2. Denail of Peter seems centered around Mt. 16:15-19
   “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The denial centers around MOST OFTEN what Christ actually means by “rock.” Many say it means “pebbles” [NOT!] Christ spoke Arameric; NOT Greek; but even their understanding is WRONG.

I have a document I can send to ANYONE interested that shows 50 bible Peter FIRST!
And another that EXPLAINS “the key’s” passage. [send me a PM]

1. If Peter can be denied; then SO TOO can and IS INFALLIBILITY
   That too supports competing faiths and churches.

Some calim [rightly so] that Christ is the corner stone: BUT THIS DOESN NOT remove Peter as “thee ROCK”
Eph. 2: 20-23 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [singular] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.”

The motive lies in the FACT that Catholism has to be denied and destroyed in order to JUSTIFY thier own man made religion and faith beliefs, which has no biblical foundation or justification. [PLEASE PROVE THIS WRONG]

1. God ALWAY’S; both OT with the Hebrew nation and NT with the CC has freely chosen to Have; Guide. Support, and Protect only ONE Group.

This is clearly provealbe by using the entire bible.

READ these passages carefully:
Mt.10:1-8 “And having called his twelve disciples together,** he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.** And **the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,/B] ect. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

Jn. 21 [THE LAST CHAPTER in John] "Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mt. 28:16-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and** behold I am with you all days**, even to the consummation of the world.”

CHRIST HIMSELF CAUSED SUCESSION TO BE IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE NECESSARY:

Take note in Mt 10 Christ commnads to Peter and the Apostles to go ONLY to the Jews: THEN in Mt. 28:18-19 this is EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE WORLD; this making SUCCESSION an absolute necesity to accomplish. [Mk. 16:14-15] repeats this change

Hope this clarifies it for you? IF NOT PLEASE let me know and I’ll try again

God Bless you,
Patrick**

 

[PJM]

=Hockeygurl;11408137]Quote: Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

Must, no. But we all have to agree according to scripture a biship CAN be married. How many bishops are married today? What would happen if one of them wanted to get married? It is certainly not forbidden in scripture. Would a Catholic Bishop who married be allowed to stay a bishop?

MAY I inject a important; but not always recogonized fact here?

The CC has [and has always had] a system of binding authority.

We seperate sacred Tradition; defined Doctrine and Proclaimed- Dogma as being unchangable. [period:thumbsup:]

BUT we hold “church practices” as a SEPERTAE catagory; and married clergy falls into this later group [while a male-only priesthood] remains in the aboveunchangeable group.

At one time the CC had and permitted married clergy. Then discovered [LED by the HS] that clergy can and ARE far more effective when their focus CAN more easily reamin on Godly things; and THINGS of God.

So the mandate for an unmarried clery COULD be changed; but MOST likely will not be.

EVERYONE called by God to Preistly service KNOWS this LONG before hand and FREELY chooses to agree with it’s mandate.

So understand that a unmarried clergy is a CHURCH PRACTICE, not a doctrine or a Dogma.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Peter_J]

And all God’s people say, “Amen.”

Do you hear what your Protestant brother is saying, Kliska?

What? A Protestant?

(Just kidding, Jon et al.)

 

[Peter_J]

Quote: Well, of course, Kliska. Randy is a good Catholic, and I define good here as a Catholic who follows the faith. BTW, his seems to logical interpretation. I don’t believe the meaning is a bishop must be married.

Must, no. But we all have to agree according to scripture a biship CAN be married. **How many bishops are married today? **

Rather than “today”, I think a better question would be, How many married bishops were there from the early church up until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century? The answer is not very many – after the first couple centuries, the practice of married bishops was permitted only in the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

SURE

But what is the critical issue here, is not Peter; but the Authority of the CC Herself. Peter’s is the “escape goat.” Peter is the “EFFECT” not the “CAUSE” which IS Christ and his Devine [and very often clear and precise teachings] that are nevertheless ignored or misrepresented.

Luke 22:31 "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren

If Christ did NOT choose Peter; then two possibilities would exist.

1. Christ did not choose any leadership so Protestants are thereby “justified” in founding faiths competing with the CC.
2. Denail of Peter seems centered around Mt. 16:15-19
   “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The denial centers around MOST OFTEN what Christ actually means by “rock.” Many say it means “pebbles” [NOT!] Christ spoke Arameric; NOT Greek; but even their understanding is WRONG.

I have a document I can send to ANYONE interested that shows 50 bible Peter FIRST!
And another that EXPLAINS “the key’s” passage. [send me a PM]

1. If Peter can be denied; then SO TOO can and IS INFALLIBILITY
   That too supports competing faiths and churches.

Some calim [rightly so] that Christ is the corner stone: BUT THIS DOESN NOT remove Peter as “thee ROCK”
Eph. 2: 20-23 “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, [singular] being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [singular] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.”

The motive lies in the FACT that Catholism has to be denied and destroyed in order to JUSTIFY thier own man made religion and faith beliefs, which has no biblical foundation or justification. [PLEASE PROVE THIS WRONG]

1. God ALWAY’S; both OT with the Hebrew nation and NT with the CC has freely chosen to Have; Guide. Support, and Protect only ONE Group.

This is clearly provealbe by using the entire bible.

READ these passages carefully:
Mt.10:1-8 “And having called his twelve disciples together,** he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.** And **the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,/**B] ect. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

Jn. 21 [THE LAST CHAPTER in John] "Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Mt. 28:16-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and** behold I am with you all days**, even to the consummation of the world.”

CHRIST HIMSELF CAUSED SUCESSION TO BE IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE NECESSARY:

Take note in Mt 10 Christ commnads to Peter and the Apostles to go ONLY to the Jews: THEN in Mt. 28:18-19 this is EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE WORLD; this making SUCCESSION an absolute necesity to accomplish. [Mk. 16:14-15] repeats this change

Hope this clarifies it for you? IF NOT PLEASE let me know and I’ll try again

God Bless you,
Patrick

Good morning Patrick. I am going through your reply and thank you for all the work you put into it. I may have some more questions when I am finished going through it.

Thanks again,
Gary