Things Catholics base on Tradition and not scripture.

[DCNBILL]

I am sorry that I cannot believe what you say about this “priest being married” thing. It is a fact that priests in the RCC are not permitted to marry, I have known several to leave the RCC so they could be married. Scripturally a person can marry after their spouse dies. Blessings.

But it is also a fact that in the RCC, a married man can, in some circumstances, be ordained a priest.

 

[googie]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:37-39[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:21[/BIBLEDRB]

Pay close attention to what it says. “Baptism, being of the liketh form, now saveth you.” In the NSRV translation, it would be rendered as “Baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you”. Interesting verse, eh?

By the way, my RC Bible says “repent”, not “do penance” as you say. One should not be baptized until one has repented of their sin and turned to Christ and received Him as their Lord and Savior. The verse from 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking about the preceding verse. This verse would actually read (That by the way, is what baptism pictures for us): In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ. Blessings.

 

[JRKH]

By the way, my RC Bible says “repent”, not “do penance” as you say. One should not be baptized until one has repented of their sin and turned to Christ and received Him as their Lord and Savior. The verse from 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking about the preceding verse. This verse would actually read (That by the way, is what baptism pictures for us): In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ. Blessings.

The Greek used here in Acts is “Metanoeo” and indeed does translates better as “repent”. Stongs gives the definition as:

1. 
   *]to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
   *]to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
   
   Of course the idea of amending, of making amends, can be seen as “doing penance”.
   The the verse preceding this, we see that the people were “pricked” in their heart (KJV). That is to say stung or begun to convert. The Douay Rheims renders pricked as “compunction” which seems to indicate more of a “conversion experience”.
   Thus what follows is the call to repentance andbaptism. Perhaps the translators were looking at this when they chose to tranlate it a “doing penence” instead of repent.
   
   Just a thought.
   
   Peace
   James

 

[Pax]

I am sorry that I cannot believe what you say about this “priest being married” thing. It is a fact that priests in the RCC are not permitted to marry, I have known several to leave the RCC so they could be married. Scripturally a person can marry after their spouse dies. Blessings.

googie in Christ,

If you do not believe a Catholic about what is Catholic then do not form any conclusions on your own either. Priests in some rites of the Catholic Church are allowed to marry. Historically, priests have in general been allowed to marry. It is a discipline not a doctrine. The discipline can be and has been changed, but a doctrine cannot be changed.

Does that help?

God bless.

 

[Pax]

I don’t think you are reading from the Bible in reference to Heb 10:12-18, this is talking about Jesus, look at verse 12, it says “this man”, referring to Jesus Christ, “offered one sacrifice for sin forever”, it is very clear. By the way, your catechism calls “it” a sacrifice. Blessings.

googie in Christ,

I think we are talking past one another. Yes, verse 12 refers to Jesus, but you have been attempting to use this against the Catholic sacrifice of the mass. It is this problem that I am attempting to correct. Clearly, your argument is that the one sacrifice mentioned in verse 12 makes obsolete all other sacrifice and, therefore, the mass is wrong. My point to you is the context. The comparison in Hebrews is obvious and that is my point. First of all, it is called “The Letter to the Hebrews.” It is addressed to Hebrew converts and it is clearly telling them about the sacrifice of Jesus in verse 12 and elsewhere in contrast to and against the sacrifice of goats and bulls. You can see this in the immediate context set by Hebrews 10:8-11 which says:

When he said above, “Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Lo, I have come to do thy will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Please take note of the reference to the OT sacrifices. That is the context and that is my point. None of this applies to the sacrifice of the mass which happens to be the same once and for all sacrifice of Jesus mentioned in verse 12.

Does that help?

God bless.

 

[Cruxis117]

By the way, my RC Bible says “repent”, not “do penance” as you say. One should not be baptized until one has repented of their sin and turned to Christ and received Him as their Lord and Savior. The verse from 1 Peter 3:21 is speaking about the preceding verse. This verse would actually read (That by the way, is what baptism pictures for us): In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ. Blessings.

That is the Douay-Rhiems Bible. And must I remind you, that you may have a Catholic bible, but it is not “Roman Catholic”? You seem to not read my posts, concerning the proper understanding of the terminology of a Catholic.

And in relation to 1 Peter 3:18-21, again, looking in context (as we always should),

18For (A)Christ also died for sins (B)once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might (C)bring us to God, having been put to death (D)in the flesh, but made alive (E)in the spirit;

19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

20who once were disobedient, when the (F)patience of God (G)kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (H)the ark, in which a few, that is, (I)eight (J)persons, were brought safely through the water.

21(K)Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–(L)not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a (M)good conscience–through (N)the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB)

Checking in context, it seems that it is speaking of the same thing. That Baptism, which relates to the scenario described in the previous verse, now saves you.

I must ask you, where in Scripture does it say that one is to “recieve Jesus as their Lord and Savior”?

 

[Cruxis117]

I am sorry that I cannot believe what you say about this “priest being married” thing. It is a fact that priests in the RCC are not permitted to marry, I have known several to leave the RCC so they could be married. Scripturally a person can marry after their spouse dies. Blessings.

It is a fact, that yes, as it has been noted by myself and by other posters, that in some circumstances, there can be a married preist in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, while in the Eastern Catholic Churches, married priests are the norm. Furthermore, this is, again as previously noted, not a doctrinal matter, but a discipline. Please, googie, before claiming things to be “fact”, please research what you are saying in order to hold any authoritive opinion. Thank you.

 

[Pax]

googie in Christ,

It is clear that you are carrying one side of this discussion all by yourself which places a heavy burden upon you. You’re outnumbered and it will be difficult for you to give answers to everyone. We also have the problem of several topics being discussed at one time as opposed to taking them in some sort of order.

I would suggest that we try discussing one thing at a time and then to stay focused until it is well covered and you’re willing to move on to the next one. This will make it easier for you and it will also provide you with a better and more cohesive understanding of Catholic teaching. Naturally, this is all up to you.

For my part, I would like to know what your thoughts are and response to my posts #112, 113, and 114.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

 

[inkaneer]

It is a fact, that yes, as it has been noted by myself and by other posters, that in some circumstances, there can be a married preist in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, while in the Eastern Catholic Churches, married priests are the norm. Furthermore, this is, again as previously noted, not a doctrinal matter, but a discipline. Please, googie, before claiming things to be “fact”, please research what you are saying in order to hold any authoritive opinion. Thank you.

Well if we are going to strive for accuracy then let’s go the whole way. shall we? In the Western church celibacy is the normal current discipline for priests, monks and other religious except deacons. A married man can become a deacon but once a deacon a man cannot marry again if his first spouse should die. Now there are cases of married men who have been ordained to the priesthod. Some Anglican and protestant married converts have been so ordained. It is, therefore, permitted in a few instances and done so on a case by case basis. Generally speaking though celibacy is the normal discipline.

In the Eastern church [including the Orthodox] priests also are not permitted to marry. They can, however, marry before they are ordained to the priesthood and many Eastern Church priests are thus married then ordained. However, if their spouse should die they cannot remarry.

One other distinction should be mentioned. In the western Church bishops are appointed from the ranks of priests/ monks and are therefore not married. In the Orthodox Church bishops also are not married. That is because bishops in the Orthodox Church are chosen from among monks rather than priests as in the Western Church. Monks in the Eastern Church are celibate.

I believe the Coptic Church follows the Orthodox pattern.

 

[JRKH]

As Pax has said, there are a number of topics being discussed here, a number of folks involved and to a large extent we are talking past each other.

Googie asked for things based on tradition. I’m sure that there were several shown to him early on. Thus, to that extent the thread question has been answered.
Now I have not read through all the posts, but I assume that this thread has progressed as most others like it do. The question is asked and answered, the OP then begins a discussion on the validity of the topics raised, from a scriptural vs standpoint. This then leads into variations in interpretations etc. Ultimately an impasse is reached because of these differing viewpoints.

I said earlier that every one of these kinds of conversations come down to a single issue and that issue is authority. The SS protestant places the authority in the Bible and in his own ability to understand it for himself - even if that means disagreeing with other SS protestants who do the same. For this reason, googie could well have these same disagreements with other protestants who disagree with his particular view of Baptism or the Eucharist or whatever…
Catholics on the other hand place authority in the Bible as well, but in the Bible as understood and taught by the ekklsia - The Church, precisely as the Bible tells us to do.
Thus when Catholics have disagreements we have a huge body of consistant teaching and history to draw on to keep us on the right path. We can “tell it to The Church” (Mt 18:17), “Listen to The Church” (Mt 18:18), becuae we know from Scripture that it is The Church that is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Now I’m not saying that these discussions cannot be fruitful, far from it, but ultimately no movement forward can be made until those rejecting the authority of the Church clearly shown in Scripture have their eyes opened by The Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[DCNBILL]

As Pax has said, there are a number of topics being discussed here, a number of folks involved and to a large extent we are talking past each other.

Googie asked for things based on tradition. I’m sure that there were several shown to him early on. Thus, to that extent the thread question has been answered.
Now I have not read through all the posts, but I assume that this thread has progressed as most others like it do. The question is asked and answered, the OP then begins a discussion on the validity of the topics raised, from a scriptural vs standpoint. This then leads into variations in interpretations etc. Ultimately an impasse is reached because of these differing viewpoints.

I said earlier that every one of these kinds of conversations come down to a single issue and that issue is authority. The SS protestant places the authority in the Bible and in his own ability to understand it for himself - even if that means disagreeing with other SS protestants who do the same. For this reason, googie could well have these same disagreements with other protestants who disagree with his particular view of Baptism or the Eucharist or whatever…
Catholics on the other hand place authority in the Bible as well, but in the Bible as understood and taught by the ekklsia - The Church, precisely as the Bible tells us to do.
Thus when Catholics have disagreements we have a huge body of consistant teaching and history to draw on to keep us on the right path. We can “tell it to The Church” (Mt 18:17), “Listen to The Church” (Mt 18:18), becuae we know from Scripture that it is The Church that is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Now I’m not saying that these discussions cannot be fruitful, far from it, but ultimately no movement forward can be made until those rejecting the authority of the Church clearly shown in Scripture have their eyes opened by The Spirit.

Peace
James

Very much in agreement with you here James but I would just like to add one thought.

A main requirement in the search for truth entails one other thing, an earnest, humble, desire for that truth. This type of disposition leads one to move outside of ones self and to open ones self to the Spirit for the guidance that you aptly pointed to.

 

[Cruxis117]

Well if we are going to strive for accuracy then let’s go the whole way. shall we? In the Western church celibacy is the normal current discipline for priests, monks and other religious except deacons. A married man can become a deacon but once a deacon a man cannot marry again if his first spouse should die. Now there are cases of married men who have been ordained to the priesthod. Some Anglican and protestant married converts have been so ordained. It is, therefore, permitted in a few instances and done so on a case by case basis. Generally speaking though celibacy is the normal discipline.

In the Eastern church [including the Orthodox] priests also are not permitted to marry. They can, however, marry before they are ordained to the priesthood and many Eastern Church priests are thus married then ordained. However, if their spouse should die they cannot remarry.

One other distinction should be mentioned. In the western Church bishops are appointed from the ranks of priests/ monks and are therefore not married. In the Orthodox Church bishops also are not married. That is because bishops in the Orthodox Church are chosen from among monks rather than priests as in the Western Church. Monks in the Eastern Church are celibate.

I believe the Coptic Church follows the Orthodox pattern.

Yes, this is completely accurate.
I was merely explaining to googie the error of his misconception to the extent that he had. However, you are absolutely right. Thanks!

 

[Pax]

Well if we are going to strive for accuracy then let’s go the whole way. shall we? In the Western church celibacy is the normal current discipline for priests, monks and other religious except deacons. A married man can become a deacon but once a deacon a man cannot marry again if his first spouse should die. Now there are cases of married men who have been ordained to the priesthod. Some Anglican and protestant married converts have been so ordained. It is, therefore, permitted in a few instances and done so on a case by case basis. Generally speaking though celibacy is the normal discipline.

In the Eastern church [including the Orthodox] priests also are not permitted to marry. They can, however, marry before they are ordained to the priesthood and many Eastern Church priests are thus married then ordained. However, if their spouse should die they cannot remarry.

One other distinction should be mentioned. In the western Church bishops are appointed from the ranks of priests/ monks and are therefore not married. In the Orthodox Church bishops also are not married. That is because bishops in the Orthodox Church are chosen from among monks rather than priests as in the Western Church. Monks in the Eastern Church are celibate.

I believe the Coptic Church follows the Orthodox pattern.

Great summary!!!

 

[googie]

Christ may not be a literal “door” as we would see one, but can anyone go to the father without going through him? Of course not!
And in terms of baptism, let me show you two scriptures that disagree with you.

John 3:1-5

1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.[a]”

4 “How can anyone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.

Sounds like Baptism to me. Hmm, let’s check out another bible verse.

1 Peter 3:21
21 Corresponding to that,** baptism now saves you**–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Again, Baptism. You seem to ignore the Scriptures for your own, unbiblical opinion.

I believe when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, the water He was referring to was “the washing of water by the word” as in Eph 5:26 and ! Peter 1:23, " being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever". Blessings.

 

[googie]

The Greek used here in Acts is “Metanoeo” and indeed does translates better as “repent”. Stongs gives the definition as:

1. 
   *]to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
   *]to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins
   
   Of course the idea of amending, of making amends, can be seen as “doing penance”.
   The the verse preceding this, we see that the people were “pricked” in their heart (KJV). That is to say stung or begun to convert. The Douay Rheims renders pricked as “compunction” which seems to indicate more of a “conversion experience”.
   Thus what follows is the call to repentance andbaptism. Perhaps the translators were looking at this when they chose to tranlate it a “doing penence” instead of repent.
   
   Just a thought.
   
   Peace
   James

1. 
   But always repentance first and then baptism, according to the word of God. Blessings.

 

[googie]

googie in Christ,

I think we are talking past one another. Yes, verse 12 refers to Jesus, but you have been attempting to use this against the Catholic sacrifice of the mass. It is this problem that I am attempting to correct. Clearly, your argument is that the one sacrifice mentioned in verse 12 makes obsolete all other sacrifice and, therefore, the mass is wrong. My point to you is the context. The comparison in Hebrews is obvious and that is my point. First of all, it is called “The Letter to the Hebrews.” It is addressed to Hebrew converts and it is clearly telling them about the sacrifice of Jesus in verse 12 and elsewhere in contrast to and against the sacrifice of goats and bulls. You can see this in the immediate context set by Hebrews 10:8-11 which says:

Please take note of the reference to the OT sacrifices. That is the context and that is my point. None of this applies to the sacrifice of the mass which happens to be the same once and for all sacrifice of Jesus mentioned in verse 12.

Does that help?

God bless.

So you ignore the “once for all” This really means “no more”, “not again”, so what do you gain by doing it.?

 

[Lampo]

So you ignore the “once for all” This really means “no more”, “not again”, so what do you gain by doing it.?

That Catholic Mass isn’t doing it again. It’s the one and the same. The exact same one that happened 2,000 years ago.

Think God could allow this to happen if he wanted to?

 

[Cruxis117]

I believe when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about being born again, the water He was referring to was “the washing of water by the word” as in Eph 5:26 and ! Peter 1:23, " being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever". Blessings.

I don’t see any of that in what he says. And remember, that Ephesians and 1 Peter 1:23, were both written after the words of Christ. Furthermore, what do you mean by “the washing of water by the word”? Do you mean the Living Word of God? The Scriptures? In what way is this referred to?

So, clearly, when Christ says that “no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit” (John 3:5), and Peter saying “Repent, and* be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven*; and you will recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37), and Paul saying “And now why do you delay?* Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away*, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and with Paul also saying, to Titus, “he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy, *through the water of rebirth *and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), then they didn’t mean “water”, but of something else? Surely, this is a foolish idea.

Think about what that verse says. Is “the **washing of water **by the word” not the same thing as saying “be baptized every one of you (the washing of water) in the name of Jesus Christ (by the word)”? That by the washing of water, or the baptizing of a person, in the name of Jesus Christ, or by the Living Word of God, is the same thing?

As I have stated, Jesus was referring to the only way of entering the Kingdom, of being born of water and Spirit.

 

[Cruxis117]

That Catholic Mass isn’t doing it again. It’s the one and the same. The exact same one that happened 2,000 years ago.

Think God could allow this to happen if he wanted to?

Exactly! And in relation to your last statement, "Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27)

 

[Lampo]

Exactly! And in relation to your last statement, "Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27)

Yep. You know, this may be the first time Googie has ever heard this and hard for him/her to digest. That’s where faith and humility kick in. Not too much more we can do other than present the truth and pray. After all, with God, all things are possible.