The problem of Witchcraft/Paganism

[masha]

Heartwood, before you say a church is just a building, I think you need to remember that a church is a sacred space, and therefore while physically “just a building” it is spiritually much much more.

Crazzeto, paganism is not 95 - 99% wrong, it’s really only in a few of the essentials that they’re lacking. And please remember that Truth does not have to be theological. Think of paganism as similar to art: “a lie that tells the truth,” neo-paganism has the ideals to be Catholic, without the understanding, whereas much of the American Church has the understanding, without the ideals.

But I’m really glad you said this:

It doesn’t make you evil in the eyes of the church, it does however mean you are walking down the wrong path which we all find sad. None of us, including “the church” want to see someone walking down the wrong path like this, because it almost certainly won’t lead to eternal life which is what we all want for you. So please don’t take anything in this debate as a judgment, after all none of us on earth, not even the church has the authority to judge your soul.

I’m glad you did join, and I’m glad you have been willing to continue debating with us, and discussing your faith views. Particularly since I do firmly believe you are walking down the wrong path. It is my hope, and greatest prayer that everyone walking down the wrong path would find their way to the light of the Truth of Jesus Christ.

Sorry if it seems like I’m jumping in, but I’ve only just discovered this thread and it interests me.

 

[crazzeto]

Heartwood, before you say a church is just a building, I think you need to remember that a church is a sacred space, and therefore while physically “just a building” it is spiritually much much more.

Very good advice, completely agree

Crazzeto, paganism is not 95 - 99% wrong, it’s really only in a few of the essentials that they’re lacking. And please remember that Truth does not have to be theological. Think of paganism as similar to art: “a lie that tells the truth,” neo-paganism has the ideals to be Catholic, without the understanding, whereas much of the American Church has the understanding, without the ideals.

If I may, I think what your’e trying to get at is this… And believe it or not this is a very Christian belief. That God has implanted sign posts to the truth in other faith groups. But this is not to imply that these faiths are in any way “mostly true” or “basically true”… I would reserve this only for Christian faiths, Jewdism which takes the story half way, and maybe Islam which is rooted in the same heritage… Though personally I find Islam harder to determain.

Outside of that you’re really taking a left turn on the fork of the road, and start travelling down the wrong road. Now this doesn’t take away those truths that are there, but it does mean that they are fewer and farther between. Neo-Peganism is most problematic… It’s an amalgom of may different ancient theologies, mostly pegan and rooted in the Occult. Once you start walking down that path, you’re really starting to walk down the wrong path. It doesn’t mean they don’t have any truth, they have at least some. At the very least they get some of the observable truths correct, but from here you start getting very sparce truth.

But I’m really glad you said this:

Sorry if it seems like I’m jumping in, but I’ve only just discovered this thread and it interests me.

 

[NoWings]

Very good advice, completely agree

I missed that part in her posts.

To any neo-pagan thinking along similar lines, think of a church as a circle that’s been cast that never gets dispelled. It’s always there.

 

[crazzeto]

I missed that part in her posts.

To any neo-pagan thinking along similar lines, think of a church as a circle that’s been cast that never gets dispelled. It’s always there.

the part where she reminded him a Church is just a building. That is good advice to anyone, a Church isn’t just a building.

 

[StormSurfer]

My best friend is a ex-pagan, who is now a Christian (Not sure which denomination), and I never saw anything wrong with her. I don’t see much of a change now, except she goes to church Sundays, and Wednesdays, and she has a Bible. I mean, maybe I am lost on what you mean by “problem”?

I wouldn’t be worried about it, people believe what they do, if you want to convert them, show them how your Church has impacted your life, and maybe they will want to have a impact too, and maybe come to Church with you, and maybe even go through RCIA.

 

[masha]

If I may, I think what your’e trying to get at is this… And believe it or not this is a very Christian belief. That God has implanted sign posts to the truth in other faith groups. But this is not to imply that these faiths are in any way “mostly true” or “basically true”… I would reserve this only for Christian faiths, Jewdism which takes the story half way, and maybe Islam which is rooted in the same heritage… Though personally I find Islam harder to determain.

Outside of that you’re really taking a left turn on the fork of the road, and start travelling down the wrong road. Now this doesn’t take away those truths that are there, but it does mean that they are fewer and farther between. Neo-Peganism is most problematic… It’s an amalgom of may different ancient theologies, mostly pegan and rooted in the Occult. Once you start walking down that path, you’re really starting to walk down the wrong path. It doesn’t mean they don’t have any truth, they have at least some. At the very least they get some of the observable truths correct, but from here you start getting very sparce truth.

When talk about the similar truths in paganism and Catholicism, I don’t mean the whole “all roads lead to heaven” idea that is so popular now. What I mean is that paganism is a mythology created by man in the desire to find God. Because all men are made in the image and likeness of God, and with a deep desire to know God, their mythology springs from this and on some level a part of truth. The beauty in much of ancient paganism - remember that the Catechim says that “Truth is beautiful in itself.” (2500) - that beauty must come from God, as all beauty does. The imagination in Paganism is closer to the authentic Catholic imagination than the Protestant imagination is to the Catholic, because of the view of mankind and the importance of mystery. That doesn’t mean I’m saying, as it probably sounds (we’re so used to hearing people say this), that Paganism is just another branch of the same tree, and that we can get to heaven just as well with one as with another.

It’s easier if you think of both Catholicism and paganism as myths; Paganism is the myth written by man in search of God, Catholicism is the Myth written by God in pursuit of man. Paganism is the myth written in the tales and culture of a people, Catholicism is the Myth written in time and in the lives of men. (In this we define myth not as a work of religious fiction, but as a God-story and as a work of art).

I do agree with you though, that neo-paganism is more problematic, partially because its no long tied to a culture, but “cafeteria-style” which makes it generally less of a pursuit of God and more of a pursuit of comfort in religion. But also because I don’t believe that it’s possible in our society to be a true pagan, we’ve lost much of our wonder in relation to nature and in relation to God, which is essential to true paganism, we’ve lost much of our natural connection to the elements, and spiritually, we’ve been given the incarnation, which changes everything in such a way that paganism as a legitimate form of worship has been failing ever since. The neo-pagan attempt to revive paganism is attractive because it presents us with parts of our Catholicism we often reject, like mystery, but it’s empty because it can really give us what we’re longing for. The truth in it isn’t theological at all, and it is a lesser version of the Truth in Catholicism, but it is there and that is why people are attracted to it.

Sorry if the response is a bit wordy, the Catholic-Pagan connection is one of my areas of study, so I get pretty into it.**

 

[mangy_dog]

What?

You can’t usurp a holiday that’s yours to begin with.

I’ll make it simpler…

All hollows eve - Halloween. Following day: All Saints Day.

 

[heartwood010]

Sorry it has taken so long for me to respond on this, but we had 12 extra people here for the weekend.

On a church is just a building … I agree that there are sacred spaces and that spaces can be made sacred. I like the analogy of a circle that is never dispelled. What I meant by the original comment was that one does not have to have a specific place, building, clearing in the woods, whatever, to pray in. A prayer in your car stuck in traffic is just as valid as one made in a granite megalith with 300 year old stained glass. A group of people can discuss scripture just as easily around a campfire as they can in a small room behind the sanctuary, sipping coffee and eating donuts. While I do agree that the more people who raise their voices to the Divine in a common purpose, the more powerful the petition will be, ANY place where 2 or more are gathered in His name can be called a church.

On the right or wrong path issue…this one is more tricky to respond to, but I will try to be understandable. If I were to say," My God is bigger than your God" I would be a bigot. I do not deny the fact that I might be wrong. I am only human. That is why I keep an open mind about this. But…the bible was written by the God inspired hand of man and has been left open to interpretation. The KJV was completely rewritten because James I wanted it to read just a bit differently. Even before the KJV, there were many versions of the bible. Monastery full of monks would spend a lifetime copying and translating texts and would have constant debates on the validity of their translations. Whole books of the bible were removed during the many Vatican Councils because they didn’t say what the Church wanted them to. And the early church was very politically motivated and had incredible control over kingdom’s and individual’s lives. Granted, the words themselves were inspired by God, but anything that has to be changed to fit the current political climate, cannot be wholly the truth. I feel that there is some “sin by omission” involved.

On paganism…I think that more young people (girls especially) are drawn to Earth-based religions because there isn’t the inequality of the sexes you see in the Christian religions. The Church is traditionally male dominated, and a good deal of it’s teachings reinforce that. In the coven, the Priestess is equally important as the Priest. And in some cases, the Priestess is actually more important. As a representative of the Goddess, she is the nurturer, the comforter, the healer, and the sacred vessel while the Priest as the representative of the God is the protector, the provider, the disciplinarian, and the father figure. You can’t have one without the other because the male and female must be in balance. There is a lot of abuse of this though. Women who have been submissive to men find that they have a right to be equal and become dominating or dismissive of the need for men in general. This not only isn’t right, it isn’t healthy. This is only part of the reason that I practice as a solitary and not part of a group.

On co-opted holy days…since the holy days in most pagan religions were around before the time of Christ, one as to wonder who co-opted whom. Shepherds took their flocks out in the Spring and there is astronomical evidence that the Star of Bethlehem was an alignment of planets that occurred in the Spring, yet the Birth of Christ was decided to occur on December 25 to coincide with the winter Solstice when several of the pagan “Gods” are reborn in several different mythos. Samhain was celebrated long before All Hallows Eve (the night before All Saints Day) so it makes one wonder. Easter is always the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. That sounds like a somewhat pagan way to decide when to celebrate the Passion of Christ. I personally believe a birthday can be celebrated when ever you want to celebrate it. The meaning is still the same. If that is the day you want to have a party, knock your self out.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry it has taken so long for me to respond on this, but we had 12 extra people here for the weekend.

On a church is just a building … I agree that there are sacred spaces and that spaces can be made sacred. I like the analogy of a circle that is never dispelled. What I meant by the original comment was that one does not have to have a specific place, building, clearing in the woods, whatever, to pray in. A prayer in your car stuck in traffic is just as valid as one made in a granite megalith with 300 year old stained glass. A group of people can discuss scripture just as easily around a campfire as they can in a small room behind the sanctuary, sipping coffee and eating donuts. While I do agree that the more people who raise their voices to the Divine in a common purpose, the more powerful the petition will be, ANY place where 2 or more are gathered in His name can be called a church.

In no sense, is a Church just a building. When we worship the Liturgy in our Catholic mass, we are literally worshiping with the Saints and Angels in heaven. There is very much a direct participation going on here, it’s not a copy, it’s not something apart from what is happening in heaven.

On the right or wrong path issue…this one is more tricky to respond to, but I will try to be understandable. If I were to say," My God is bigger than your God" I would be a bigot. I do not deny the fact that I might be wrong. I am only human. That is why I keep an open mind about this. But…the bible was written by the God inspired hand of man and has been left open to interpretation. The KJV was completely rewritten because James I wanted it to read just a bit differently. Even before the KJV, there were many versions of the bible. Monastery full of monks would spend a lifetime copying and translating texts and would have constant debates on the validity of their translations. Whole books of the bible were removed during the many Vatican Councils because they didn’t say what the Church wanted them to. And the early church was very politically motivated and had incredible control over kingdom’s and individual’s lives. Granted, the words themselves were inspired by God, but anything that has to be changed to fit the current political climate, cannot be wholly the truth. I feel that there is some “sin by omission” involved.

Well anyone with a rational mind and good study of history realizes that there were in fact occational errors (200,000 in total, over 1,500 years prior to the refermation) which entered for different reasons into the text. Some people, like in the case of Luther did in fact change Gospel deliberatly because they felt the gospel didn’t agree with their theological idea’s. Those instances are very few, and far between, and may easily be detected by comparing translations of the bible. Most errors crept in over time due to tiredness of the Scribe (copying the bible by hand), errors retranscribing a previous copy (such as including footnotes in as Gospel text accidently) and other errors.

Here’s the deal, Christ didn’t leave us a Bible. He didn’t even comission a bible to be written. What Christ left us is a living, breathing, teaching Church which will never err in its instructions of the faith. This has always been true, has always been accurate.

With regard to your comments about the right and wrong path. The problem here is that you refuse to believe the simple fact that there must be a single, objective truth of God. Instead you prefer to beleive “well it’s all good”, but that just isn’t the case. It’s not all good, there is a correct path and an incorrect path. A truth of God, and a mis-truth of God. Christianity is the truth of God. God will not damn those who are not exposed to the truth because of the simple fact they’ve never been exposed to the truth. But to those whom much is given, much is required. If you know the truth, you must live the truth. To refuse this is to deny God, trium God.

end part 1

 

[crazzeto]

begin part 2

On paganism…I think that more young people (girls especially) are drawn to Earth-based religions because there isn’t the inequality of the sexes you see in the Christian religions. The Church is traditionally male dominated, and a good deal of it’s teachings reinforce that. In the coven, the Priestess is equally important as the Priest. And in some cases, the Priestess is actually more important. As a representative of the Goddess, she is the nurturer, the comforter, the healer, and the sacred vessel while the Priest as the representative of the God is the protector, the provider, the disciplinarian, and the father figure. You can’t have one without the other because the male and female must be in balance. There is a lot of abuse of this though. Women who have been submissive to men find that they have a right to be equal and become dominating or dismissive of the need for men in general. This not only isn’t right, it isn’t healthy. This is only part of the reason that I practice as a solitary and not part of a group.

What inequality of the sexes, exactly are you talking about? It was St. Paul, a Catholic (Apostolic specifically) teacher who said

(paraphrase)
“It is true that a woman’s body belongs to a man. But it is als true that the man’s body belongs to the woman”.

Right there Paul changed the very nature marriage was changed. Women were no longer to be, simply, the property of men (per church teaching). We venerate our holy mother the Virgin Mary, throughout time even through the so called “Dark Ages” we educated women. There were even nun’s who worked as scribes (just like the monks) copying the bible. One in particular was famous for having completely transcribed the bible twice, and made 6 copys of other individual portions of scripture.

More over, all of your idea’s about equality between the equality of the sexs is based, entirly upon Christian teaching. Or at least originally it has been, it seems today we’re mutating it into a destruction of the sexes. We are, all the sudden, trying to pretend that there aren’t any different sexes, or the very least there isn’t any real, practical difference between them. This is an obserdity, there are real differences between the sexes, but yes women are not the mere subjects of men.

 

[heartwood010]

begin part 2

What inequality of the sexes, exactly are you talking about? It was St. Paul, a Catholic (Apostolic specifically) teacher who said

(paraphrase)
“It is true that a woman’s body belongs to a man. But it is als true that the man’s body belongs to the woman”.

Right there Paul changed the very nature marriage was changed. Women were no longer to be, simply, the property of men (per church teaching). We venerate our holy mother the Virgin Mary, throughout time even through the so called “Dark Ages” we educated women. There were even nun’s who worked as scribes (just like the monks) copying the bible. One in particular was famous for having completely transcribed the bible twice, and made 6 copys of other individual portions of scripture.

More over, all of your idea’s about equality between the equality of the sexs is based, entirly upon Christian teaching. Or at least originally it has been, it seems today we’re mutating it into a destruction of the sexes. We are, all the sudden, trying to pretend that there aren’t any different sexes, or the very least there isn’t any real, practical difference between them. This is an obserdity, there are real differences between the sexes, but yes women are not the mere subjects of men.

If what you say is true, then why are women not given leadership positions in the Church? Yes, Convents were the female equivalent of monastaries and women were taught to read, and write, and worship and praise. But outside of the convent, women were treated as chattel because the church regarded women as flawed because of Original Sin. Women cannot be ordained as priests regardless of their level of devotion. Women can be respected, even venerated, but they are not given the same respect a man would be given. Adam was created first, in God’s image, and Eve was just an afterthought, and easily swayed by the serpent.

 

[crazzeto]

If what you say is true, then why are women not given leadership positions in the Church? Yes, Convents were the female equivalent of monastaries and women were taught to read, and write, and worship and praise. But outside of the convent, women were treated as chattel because the church regarded women as flawed because of Original Sin. Women cannot be ordained as priests regardless of their level of devotion. Women can be respected, even venerated, but they are not given the same respect a man would be given. Adam was created first, in God’s image, and Eve was just an afterthought, and easily swayed by the serpent.

The Church can only teach, and uphold “Gospel Turth” and doctrine as received from Christ. Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.

 

[heartwood010]

The Church can only teach, and uphold “Gospel Turth” and doctrine as received from Christ. Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.

So you are saying that women are less important to the teachings of Christ than men are? Since Christ was celibate, should all men who wish to live in a Christ-like manner be celibate as well? Are women less devout than men, simply because they are women?

I wouldn’t suggest you change Christ’s teachings, but for crying out loud, what you are saying is ridiculous. How would a Mother Superior in a convent have any authority over her charges if even a deacon can over-rule her in the eyes of the Church? Is there actual scriptural basis for this or is it just tradition? If it is tradition, then who thought of it? Christ? The Apostles? Some pope who didn’t want women to get ideas above their station?

Or was it such a non-issue to Christ that it was never brought up? Or was it removed by the Vatican Conclaves at a later date? The gospel has been changed several times over the last 2000 years. As recently as Vatican II, the method of the Mass was changed. My niece and nephew have public confessions. Some traditions appear to be ok to change, yet others are not.

 

[crazzeto]

So you are saying that women are less important to the teachings of Christ than men are? Since Christ was celibate, should all men who wish to live in a Christ-like manner be celibate as well? Are women less devout than men, simply because they are women?

I wouldn’t suggest you change Christ’s teachings, but for crying out loud, what you are saying is ridiculous. How would a Mother Superior in a convent have any authority over her charges if even a deacon can over-rule her in the eyes of the Church? Is there actual scriptural basis for this or is it just tradition? If it is tradition, then who thought of it? Christ? The Apostles? Some pope who didn’t want women to get ideas above their station?

Or was it such a non-issue to Christ that it was never brought up? Or was it removed by the Vatican Conclaves at a later date? The gospel has been changed several times over the last 2000 years. As recently as Vatican II, the method of the Mass was changed. My niece and nephew have public confessions. Some traditions appear to be ok to change, yet others are not.

Pardon me, but how do you make this connection? Please explain. That is not what I posted at any point in time, if you beleive this please quote what part of what I posted you think makes this suggestion?

 

[rinnie]

I think alot of the problem is alot of young kids are on their own. Parents work. etc and they will do anything to be accepted.

I think we as Catholic’s need to find more programs outside of Mass to help these young kids be aware of the dangerous practice and need to find a way to bring more Peace and God in their lives.

And I also think Father needs to address this more in Church. To show people how this can really ruin their lives.

 

[heartwood010]

Pardon me, but how do you make this connection? Please explain. That is not what I posted at any point in time, if you beleive this please quote what part of what I posted you think makes this suggestion?

***Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.

---

You capitalized MEN. That is how I made that connection. And you implied that Christ himself made the distinction that only MEN should be allowed to hold these offices. Is that an actual fact based on scripture or is it tradition based on what the church wanted?

 

[crazzeto]

***Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.

---

You capitalized MEN. That is how I made that connection. And you implied that Christ himself made the distinction that only MEN should be allowed to hold these offices. Is that an actual fact based on scripture or is it tradition based on what the church wanted?

You’re reading way too much into the slip of a pinky finger

The Church can only teach, and uphold “Gospel Turth” and doctrine as received from Christ. Christ instituded a Church where **Men **serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.

Notice how only the first letter is capitolized? It’s a bad habbit I have while typing, I subcontiously press the shift key periodically and capitolize the first letter of a word (as if it were a proper name) accidently. Actually it happens pretty frequently and I catch 99% of such occurances. Anyway, you’re reading way too much into that.

Men and women are equal, but that doesn’t mean we have roles in life. An army General and Navy Admiral can be said to be of equal rank, but that doesn’t mean an Army General is going to just sail out to an Aircraft carrier randomly, and take over command of a major sea battle. Any more than a Navy Admiral would sail to shore, and take over a major tank offenive on land randomly. They’re equal, but they have roles in war. Men and women are equal (M capitolized because it is the first word of a sentance, w is lower case because it is not the first word of a sentance) but they have different roles to play in life. Those roles are defined, greatly, by God.

 

[heartwood010]

You’re reading way too much into the slip of a pinky finger

Notice how only the first letter is capitolized? It’s a bad habbit I have while typing, I subcontiously press the shift key periodically and capitolize the first letter of a word (as if it were a proper name) accidently. Actually it happens pretty frequently and I catch 99% of such occurances. Anyway, you’re reading way too much into that.

Men and women are equal, but that doesn’t mean we have roles in life. An army General and Navy Admiral can be said to be of equal rank, but that doesn’t mean an Army General is going to just sail out to an Aircraft carrier randomly, and take over command of a major sea battle. Any more than a Navy Admiral would sail to shore, and take over a major tank offenive on land randomly. They’re equal, but they have roles in war. Men and women are equal (M capitolized because it is the first word of a sentance, w is lower case because it is not the first word of a sentance) but they have different roles to play in life. Those roles are defined, greatly, by God.

And yet, you still didn’t answer the question.

Your post was “Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.”

My response was "Is that an actual fact based on scripture or is it tradition based on what the church wanted? "

Is what you are saying actually based on scripture or is it just a tradition in the Church?

 

[crazzeto]

And yet, you still didn’t answer the question.

Your post was “Christ instituded a Church where Men serve as Deacons, Preists and Bishops. We have no authority to change Christs teaching.”

My response was "Is that an actual fact based on scripture or is it tradition based on what the church wanted? "

Is what you are saying actually based on scripture or is it just a tradition in the Church?

All from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’ll include footnotes

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.shtml#a

1577
"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (ver) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

1578
No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God.69 Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

All from footnote 67
Mk 3

14 And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. 15 And he gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.

16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean: 19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Lk 6

12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and he passed the whole night in the prayer of God. 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,

1 Tim 3

A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the **husband **of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

2 “Of one wife”… The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

6 “A neophyte”… That is, one lately baptized, a young convert.

11 The women in like manner chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses. 13 For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor. 17 And coming down with them, he stood in a plain place, and the company of his disciples, and a very great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast both of Tyre and Sidon,

Husband being man

2 Tim 1

6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

Titus 1

5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre: 8 But given to hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent: 9 Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers.

 

[crazzeto]

That is all strictly from the bible, the whole of which is the inerrant word of God.