What are you protesting?

[c659smith]

Benu 2007,
the persons such as Martin Luther and King Henry the 8th rejected the Church and as such rejected Jesus. Jesus is the Church.

The Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church no salvation”) has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.

Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

Let’s say the Cathoic Church dissolves and the Catholic Church was to say the bible was a lie so the bible without the Church Scripture would cease to exist as the church responsible for it’s writtings through the Holy Spirit and what is contained in it would be a lie.

Do you not get that?

.

 

[c659smith]

Benu 2007

At the last supper all but one Apostle Judas Iscariot believed and had faith Jesus was the Messiah. If that is all that is needed for salvation then why did Jesus wash their feet. What was Jesus the Rabbi teaching.

Was Jesus showing the Apostles how to do works, how to be humble but humble before no man, what did Jesus say to Peter when Peter refused to have his feet washed by Jesus?

Peter had faith and believed but was Jesus saying that without works you cannot follow me?

 

[Gara3987]

I belong to a nondenominational homeschool group. My oldest child is in eighth grade and didn’t participate in the latest ecumenical difficulty.

*To all the Catholics who will ask: Yes, the belief statement that I signed to join the group was compatible with Catholic theology. *

Recently, a Protestant Missionary gave a talk to the high school class. Not realizing that some of the kids were Catholic, she asked them the question, “What are you protesting?”

It was a question that an Eastern Orthodox Russian had asked her. It made an impression on her.

She ended the talk by asking the kids to go home and talk the question over with their parents.

One of my Catholic friends in the group is dialoguing with the leader of the class about some of the things that came up in discussion (including a statement–unrefuted-- by a student that Catholics worship people).

But, I was wondering what these parents might be saying to their high schoolers.

So, if your high schooler came home and asked, “What are we protesting?”–how would you answer?

Who’s the one who is protesting? Protestants were the ones who protested against the Catholic Church (the Church founded by Christ Himself). Those who break away from the Church and create their own domination do so because they believe the Catholic Church has fallen, and in doing so they basically are saying that our Lord lied to us. “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.” [Matthew 16: 18 DRB]

“The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

Basically Our Lord said His Church (One Church alone can be His Church, that is the one He founded), will never fall, so those who break away from Rome contravene what our Lord has ensured us about his Church, that She will never fall.

 

[c659smith]

Jesus was talking to the apostles. They were filled with the Holy Spirit - this was shown by the** kinds of works **they did. But where in the Bible does it say that we need to go to a priest. Jesus is our Great High Priest and He lives so we go to Him. **The Apostles knew the full Gospel. **So anyone that said anything different to what they said was obviously lying. So if they rejected what the apostles were saying then they had obviously rejected Christ.
May I ask you this question - If I make Jesus my Lord, then isn’t He going to be my Head as well? So stop saying that anyone who isn’t part of the Catholic church isn’t part of the body of Christ.
Which of the reformers rejected Christ as their Lord?

So now are you saying that we have to go around washing each other. Jesus did that to teach us humility. If we are to follow Christ then we have to serve others, just as Jesus did.

If you look at the bold areas Benu you will see how many times you talk about works or a work.

The Apostles then did not know the Bible for it was not written yet.

As a matter of fact Paul was still killing Christians then.

Peter was the lead or head Apostle and there was only one church which transformed into the Catholic Church when the bible was written. To be later accepted as the official scripture of Christianity.

Not a tough sell as it is fact.

 

[Benu2007]

I think we are talking about the priest hood here and them not marrying what do you think?

1 Corinthians 9:5 “Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other diciples and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?”

Even the Apostles we married. It is not wrong for Church leaders to be married. Where in your quote did it say anything along the lines of establishing a priesthood which is never talked about in the rest of the bible. As far as anyone can gather, the passage you gave was simple the apostles looking to find someone to replace Judas so there would be twelve apostles today.

Also, note how Paul distinguishes between the Lord’s brothers and deciples. That means Jesus had brothers, James and Jude were two of them. Since Mary was Jesus’ only Earthly parent they must have been her children too.

 

[Benu2007]

If you look at the bold areas Benu you will see how many times you talk about works or a work.

The Apostles then did not know the Bible for it was not written yet.

As a matter of fact Paul was still killing Christians then.

Peter was the lead or head Apostle and there was only one church which transformed into the Catholic Church when the bible was written. To be later accepted as the official scripture of Christianity.

Not a tough sell as it is fact.

The leaders in the Church became very corrupt over time. You can not tell me that selling blessings or the right to sin was not corrupt. Over time new and weird doctrines were introduced. This is historical fact. Besides, all the doctrine in the bible is based from Scripture found in the old testament - the apostles weren’t really even preaching something that hadn’t been said before.

If you want to prove your doctrine from your traditions I challenge you to do it through the Old Testament. I can back up everything I’ve been saying from the Old Testament. This is what the apostles had to do. Can you?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The leaders in the Church became very corrupt over time. You can not tell me that selling blessings or the right to sin was not corrupt. Over time new and weird doctrines were introduced. This is historical fact. Besides, all the doctrine in the bible is based from Scripture found in the old testament - the apostles weren’t really even preaching something that hadn’t been said before.

If you want to prove your doctrine from your traditions I challenge you to do it through the Old Testament. I can back up everything I’ve been saying from the Old Testament. This is what the apostles had to do. Can you?

I guess we put up with your twisted versions of history and your scurrilous accusations in the hope that eventually you will be open to the grace of God and come home. I guess I can’t totally blame you. You have apparently fallen under the influence of some very rabid self serving anti-Christians. Come out from among them.

CDL

 

[c659smith]

1 Corinthians 9:5 “Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other diciples and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?”

Even the Apostles we married. It is not wrong for Church leaders to be married. Where in your quote did it say anything along the lines of establishing a priesthood which is never talked about in the rest of the bible. As far as anyone can gather, the passage you gave was simple the apostles looking to find someone to replace Judas so there would be twelve apostles today.

Also, note how Paul distinguishes between the Lord’s brothers and deciples. That means Jesus had brothers, James and Jude were two of them. Since Mary was Jesus’ only Earthly parent they must have been her children too.

Well at least you understand Apostolic Succession no but I also post this so what are thease men exactly

6:1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists 1] arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, [2] pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.
I think we are talking about the priest hood here and them not marrying what do you think?

 

[c659smith]

1 Corinthians 9:5 “Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife with us as the other diciples and the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does?”

Even the Apostles we married. It is not wrong for Church leaders to be married. Where in your quote did it say anything along the lines of establishing a priesthood which is never talked about in the rest of the bible. As far as anyone can gather, the passage you gave was simple the apostles looking to find someone to replace Judas so there would be twelve apostles today.

Also, note how Paul distinguishes between the Lord’s brothers and deciples. That means Jesus had brothers, James and Jude were two of them. Since Mary was Jesus’ only Earthly parent they must have been her children too.

1- 1 Timothy 4:1-3: says that some give way to “doctrines of demons” by forbidding marriage. Isn’t that what the Church is doing by having a celibate clergy?

Those who “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12 NAB) do so not because marriage is bad, but precisely because its goodness makes its renunciation a valuable and generous gift to offer to God. After all, the goodness of a gift determines the value of the sacrifice.

Paul recognized the wisdom in this, and encouraged celibacy in order to free a man to be anxious about the things of the Lord and to serve him undividedly (1 Cor 7:8,32-35). In his words, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs

The point of Paul’s teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (“to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.

The Catholic Church breaks no ones arms to take a vow of celicbacy.

I hope we can at least put this to bed now as it is all over the new and old testament on the vows of celibacy as you can see from above.

 

[c659smith]

The leaders in the Church became very corrupt over time. You can not tell me that selling blessings or the right to sin was not corrupt. Over time new and weird doctrines were introduced. This is historical fact. Besides, all the doctrine in the bible is based from Scripture found in the old testament - the apostles weren’t really even preaching something that hadn’t been said before.

If you want to prove your doctrine from your traditions I challenge you to do it through the Old Testament. I can back up everything I’ve been saying from the Old Testament. This is what the apostles had to do. Can you?

So if thats the case why are you not Hebrew? For Christ came to fulfill the old testament and make things new.

Christ gave a new commandment and that was love one another.

Christ gave the Apostles powers not given to anyone since Moses.

By the way Moses was a murderer, Abraham slept with a slave,
David committed murder and adultery, and the list goes on so you see man will fall even the great men of the Old Testament. corruption

I have spoken to you in length about anything you perceive as corruption of that coming from men. I even showed you where throughout history to and include Judas Iscariot, Christ’s hand picked Apostle, that man will be corrupt but His Church is not. Jesus did not cease or change His Church because of this corrupt Apostle now did He.

Tell me why did Matthew write this?

1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 1:2Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers. 1:3Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram. 1:4Ram became the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon. Nahshon became the father of Salmon. 1:5Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse. 1:6Jesse became the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. 1:7Solomon became the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam became the father of Abijah. Abijah became the father of Asa. 1:8Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram. Joram became the father of Uzziah. 1:9Uzziah became the father of Jotham. Jotham became the father of Ahaz. Ahaz became the father of Hezekiah. 1:10Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh became the father of Amon. Amon became the father of Josiah. 1:11Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the exile to Babylon. 1:12After the exile to Babylon, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel became the father of Zerubbabel. 1:13Zerubbabel became the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim. Eliakim became the father of Azor. 1:14Azor became the father of Sadoc. Sadoc became the father of Achim. Achim became the father of Eliud. 1:15Eliud became the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan. Matthan became the father of Jacob. 1:16Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 1:17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.

1:18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this; for after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 1:19Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly. 1:20But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 1:21She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.”

1:22Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophets

Now why is only five women noted in this passage? Is it because Women were unimportant in the geneolgy of Jesus?

The geneology is written over and over again in the Old Testament.

Matthew was not givuing you Geneology that is not the lesson here.

You tell me what the 5 women have in common?

You miss the point of the New Testament by your insistence to use the old to compensate for the new testament by your statement

'Besides, all the doctrine in the bible is based from Scripture found in the old testament - the apostles weren’t really even preaching something that hadn’t been said before".

This is unlike the Old Testament.
For you see that is why you need Sacred Teachings with Sacred Scripture for what you think you understand you do not.

 

[Benu2007]

Well at least you understand Apostolic Succession no but I also post this so what are thease men exactly

6:1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists 1] arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, [2] pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.
I think we are talking about the priest hood here and them not marrying what do you think?

No we’re not. The Apostles didn’t want to get caught up in “serving tables” instead of “preaching the Word” . So they got other, Godly men, to sort the problem out so that they could on evangilising. You cannot say that this means anything other than this. Also where do get the idea that they could not marry from this? There is nothing wrong with this considering it was alright for the deciples, the Lords brothers, and for Peter himself to be married. This are the words of Paul and he says it’s perfectly fine for him to be married too - he just didn’t want to.

 

[c659smith]

No we’re not. The Apostles didn’t want to get caught up in “serving tables” instead of “preaching the Word” . So they got other, Godly men, to sort the problem out so that they could on evangilising. You cannot say that this means anything other than this. Also where do get the idea that they could not marry from this? There is nothing wrong with this considering it was alright for the deciples, the Lords brothers, and for Peter himself to be married. This are the words of Paul and he says it’s perfectly fine for him to be married too - he just didn’t want to.

First you give me what they are talking about serving tables are they talking about being waiters?

4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises not a wife.

Again the Catholic Church has married priests that was explained. Why are you stuck here?

It is the priest if not married that takes this vow to God not God to him

 

[c659smith]

No we’re not. The Apostles didn’t want to get caught up in “serving tables” instead of “preaching the Word” . So they got other, Godly men, to sort the problem out so that they could on evangilising. You cannot say that this means anything other than this. Also where do get the idea that they could not marry from this? There is nothing wrong with this considering it was alright for the deciples, the Lords brothers, and for Peter himself to be married. This are the words of Paul and he says it’s perfectly fine for him to be married too - he just didn’t want to.

Was this all you had a question with on my last three posts?

 

[Benu2007]

So if thats the case why are you not Hebrew? For Christ came to fulfill the old testament and make things new.

Christ gave a new commandment and that was love one another.

Christ gave the Apostles powers not given to anyone since Moses.

By the way Moses was a murderer, Abraham slept with a slave,
David committed murder and adultery, and the list goes on so you see man will fall even the great men of the Old Testament. corruption

Actually Christ came to fufill the law. The law still stands - it is what judges us. How Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf and took our punishment for our disobedience to the law. That is why the law no longer matters and “faith expressing itself in love” does.

The Old testament is Scipture. It is the inspired Word of God just like the New Testament. God speaks of Christianity through the Prophets and even Moses.

Look at what Paul writes to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 “15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.”

So you see scripture is useful and if you can’t use it to back up what you are saying then what you are saying is false. So go on, I challenge you to use the Old Testament - from here on in our discussion - and I will do the same. It will make it more interesting and we will both learn.

The list you gave in the Old Testament continues on in the New. For example: Peter denied Christ 3 times. All the other desciples foresook Him too. Paul was a murderer and Mark deserted Paul and his crew when they needed him. Yet they all had second chances.

Besides, what about the prophets? What did Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel or any of the others do? Obviously they did do wrong because they are people too, just like those in the New Testament, however they all repented. It wasn’t them that ispired what they wrote either - it was God - so what they did write was incorruptable.

So there is nothing wrong with using the Old Testament in our discussion, after it was all the Early Church had. So from now on that is what we will use. Please try this.

 

[Benu2007]

First you give me what they are talking about serving tables are they talking about being waiters?

4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises not a wife.

Again the Catholic Church has married priests that was explained. Why are you stuck here?

It is the priest if not married that takes this vow to God not God to him

In this passage there is a problem with the Hellenist widows being unfairly treated compared to the Jewish widows. The Apostles didn’t want to stop preaching the Word and devoting themselves to prayer etc so they chose seven others to take care of the situation. This is all the passage is talking about. It has nothing to do with priesthood or not marrying.

 

[Benu2007]

I guess we put up with your twisted versions of history and your scurrilous accusations in the hope that eventually you will be open to the grace of God and come home. I guess I can’t totally blame you. You have apparently fallen under the influence of some very rabid self serving anti-Christians. Come out from among them.

CDL

Just do a simply google search on these things and you will see what I’m saying. After that try reading some books on the topic - that aren’t all Catholic At least spend some time googling this before you accuse me of knowing nothing. If you seriously don’t know about the indulgences then you are the one that needs to review his history. Lets do this togather. To start our research why don’t we begin with Pope Alexander VI. Simply Google him and look and the first few Catholic and non-Catholic sites on him to get a fair representation.

If you don’t do this then stop complaining about my knowledge of history

 

[c659smith]

Actually Christ came to fufill the law. The law still stands - it is what judges us. How Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf and took our punishment for our disobedience to the law. That is why the law no longer matters and “faith expressing itself in love” does.

The Old testament is Scipture. It is the inspired Word of God just like the New Testament. God speaks of Christianity through the Prophets and even Moses.

Look at what Paul writes to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 “15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.”

So you see scripture is useful and if you can’t use it to back up what you are saying then what you are saying is false. So go on, I challenge you to use the Old Testament - from here on in our discussion - and I will do the same. It will make it more interesting and we will both learn.

The list you gave in the Old Testament continues on in the New. For example: Peter denied Christ 3 times. All the other desciples foresook Him too. Paul was a murderer and Mark deserted Paul and his crew when they needed him. Yet they all had second chances.

Besides, what about the prophets? What did Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel or any of the others do? Obviously they did do wrong because they are people too, just like those in the New Testament, however they all repented. It wasn’t them that ispired what they wrote either - it was God - so what they did write was incorruptable.

So there is nothing wrong with using the Old Testament in our discussion, after it was all the Early Church had. So from now on that is what we will use. Please try this.

My point was there is nothing wrong with the Old Testament. The point is that the old covenant was not corrupt but some of the Men and Women in it were ?

Of course the Old Covenant – the Old Testament is not corrupt for God makes no mistakes.

The New Covenant- The Catholic Church – the New Testament Jesus’s Church is not corrupt however men and women can be, and hopefully they will repent.

That is what is meant by infallability.

 

[c659smith]

In this passage there is a problem with the Hellenist widows being unfairly treated compared to the Jewish widows. The Apostles didn’t want to stop preaching the Word and devoting themselves to prayer etc so they chose seven others to take care of the situation. This is all the passage is talking about. It has nothing to do with priesthood or not marrying.

They lay hands upon them to me dictates that these men were going to fulfill their spiritual needs that were not being met when the Apostles left on the missionary duties spreading the word.

Serving tables is the Altars that were used.

However rather than argue that point there were numerous others on celibacy in scripture.

You agree the Catholic Church does not break anyones arms to take that vow do you not?

So the question is mute as it would be like a soldier complaining in a volunteer Army he has to fight a war.

Or a Protestant Minister claiming he does not have enough time for his wife and family.

Do you know there are other Holy Orders in the Church that do not require a vow of celibacy such as a Deacon?

I will also say again that if married already and a convert such as a Minister you can become a priest with a family . Also if married and you want to become a priest you can go to the eastern rite which is in full communion with Rome.

There are many things the secular press pushed only telling half truths or a protestant denomination that feels intimidated by the Church, for having a good degree in theology the ministers know all that.
This is where I assume you got these prejudices

 

[c659smith]

Actually Christ came to fufill the law. The law still stands - it is what judges us. How Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf and took our punishment for our disobedience to the law. That is why the law no longer matters and “faith expressing itself in love” does.

The Old testament is Scipture. It is the inspired Word of God just like the New Testament. God speaks of Christianity through the Prophets and even Moses.

Look at what Paul writes to Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 “15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.”

So you see scripture is useful and if you can’t use it to back up what you are saying then what you are saying is false. So go on, I challenge you to use the Old Testament - from here on in our discussion - and I will do the same. It will make it more interesting and we will both learn.

The list you gave in the Old Testament continues on in the New. For example: Peter denied Christ 3 times. All the other desciples foresook Him too. Paul was a murderer and Mark deserted Paul and his crew when they needed him. Yet they all had second chances.

Besides, what about the prophets? What did Isaiah, Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel or any of the others do? Obviously they did do wrong because they are people too, just like those in the New Testament, however they all repented. It wasn’t them that ispired what they wrote either - it was God - so what they did write was incorruptable.

So there is nothing wrong with using the Old Testament in our discussion, after it was all the Early Church had. So from now on that is what we will use. Please try this.

With the Catholic Church you are preaching to the choir.

Do you know we have numerous readings at every service out of the Old Testament and correlate the Old with the new
The Gospel reading.

 

[1234]

Isn’t it as likely that Charles V simply did not view Luther to be a major problem until it was too late?

CDL

Could be. I know that Charles didn’t support Luther AT ALL. But I think that Charles didn’t support the pope either, certainly not as a temporal leader as the pope certainly was in those days. And then there was Charles’ huge empires and his wars…

It really doesn’t matter. If Luther had been executed, preferably burned alive, he would have been a martyr and the flames of his pyre would have REALLY fueled the Reformation. As it was, Luther married, had children, got old and cranky like the rest of us, and wrote a lot of stupid stuff (ditto).