What is the true church?

[Eden]

Bibleapologist - You claim that your authority comes from the Bible, but the Bible clearly spells out how authority is transferred - and it’s not by self-appointment. While the Word of God is perfect, you as a human being are not. Are you saying that you have been given the gift of infallibility by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Word without error?

 

[Magicsilence]

Magic silence,

I appreciate your ability to reason. You make a very good point. But, I’m sorry, the type of logic you are describing is not the way I am operating.

You make your position known.

You claim your authority is from the Holy Spirit.

You claim that everyone who doesnt listen is blind to the Truth.

Yes, or no?

You are the first one on this thread who has said that; what they accept as truth has originated as revelation from God through the Holy Spirit… everyone else has claimed the authority of the Church, and it’s traditions.

Its really not that different. Christ asked St Paul why he was persecuting HIM, not his Church. Therefore, the Church** is** the body of Christ. To trust in the Church is to accept the truth from Jesus Christ Himself.

If you truly are as sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as you claim you are, I would like to ask you to read the article I wrote on that particular passage of scripture… then return to this thread and rebut that article without any preconceived notions from the Catholic Church.

Here is the article… “The Bread of Life, did Jesus teach transubstantiation”

John
www.gideonsword.net

No preconceived notions, huh?

Here goes:

John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

I do believe that Jesus used the same word “meat” here when discussing both the meat that perish and the meat which gives eternal life.

What reason is there to assume that Christ did not mean meat (“food” in the Jerusalem bible)?

I believe that when Christ said this sentence he was not being literal in the first part and symbolic in the next, but being consistent and being literal in the first part, and literal when talking about Himself.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The Work of God is to believe in Christ Jesus. I think you have confused believing in God and eating the flesh of the Son of Man.

Jesus is tie-ing in belief in Him AND eating his flesh, but they are not the same thing.

John 6:32-33 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Jesus talks about the bread of heaven which the Jews thought came from Moses, but which Christ says he did not. He says that the Father GIVES you the bread from heaven, the TRUE bread: the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

He is talking in the present. So he ties in the manna in the desert and the true bread of heaven. I find it unlikely that Jesus would have deliberately referenced the manna in the desert if he was only being spiritual about the bread from heaven, for the manna was VERY real.

cont…

 

[Magicsilence]

Christ says:

Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Christ says that the fathers ate manna and died. He directly corresponds this to the bread which cometh from heaven, that a man may eat of and not die.

If I say “your fathers ate fish and got ill, this is the true fish, you may eat it and will not get ill” its clear what I’m saying. What is difficult is attempting to understand how one could not die. And because of this complication, protestants have re-interpreted the words to be only symbolic.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Christ says if any one eats the bread he will live forever.

But he clarifies his statement, he says “the bread that I will give is my FLESH”

And JUST so that no one could misunderstand him he further says “which I will give for the world”. What was the flesh which Christ gave for the world? His “spiritual” flesh? Or his very real body?

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Indeed it was a hard saying. If it indeed was a misunderstanding as you say John then you will have trouble explaining the last part of Chapter 6:

“After this, many of his disciples left him and stopped going with him”

Jesus did not then explain to them that he was speaking only of belief and not of eating his actual flesh, he let them go.

I see no reason for Our Savour to have let his disciples go over a misunderstanding.

He then turns to the apostles and says “What about you, do you want to go away to?”

If Christ was being spiritual, he surely would have said it to the disciples to whom he explained the parables etc…

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I like intelligent, well thought out posts like this one!

You are welcome - thank you for your kind words. Your reciprocity is appreciated.
ba:

Sure, I’ll answer that… ABSOLUTELY! And I have. I used to read the NIV, and the NASB until I found that those versions misrepresented doctrines. I also found that it was nearly impossible to memorize scripture while studying more than one version… your preconceived notions cannot prevent me from answering a question. But the traditions you put faith in have prevented you from answering the crucial question I asked you.

I told you you would have your answer when you answered the question and now you have it: if the Catholic Church was hindering my walk with Jesus I would switch to a different Catholic Church - just like you switched to a different bible.
ba:

That verse in John 16 could not have meant the Apostles exclusively.

Lets see if you can actually substantiate this claim, shall we?
ba:

By a closer examination of the text, Jesus was referring to the subject as the Holy Spirit, and that Holy Spirit (when it would be given), would guide them in all truth.

This is a more lengthy but equally unsubstantiated restatement of your intitial claim with the “By a closer examination of the text” prefacing it. You have not moved one micrometer closer to proving that the “you” in John 16:13 referred to anyone but the apostles. Did you forget to include what the “closer examination” revealed that the plain text doesnt?
ba:

Jesus also went so far to say that the Apostles could not bear the fulness of the truth without the Holy Spirit.

I dont see how this is relevant. I do see that it does nothing to substantiate your claim that the “you” is anyone other than the Apostles.
ba:

This is the same Holy Spirit we are all given for the same purpose of revealing truth…

It is the same Holy Spirit, but that is not the question at hand. The question is whether we all recieve the gift of infallibility. The fact is that Scripture tells us that not all are apostles, or teachers, etc, etc. We are all members of the same body, enlightened by the same Spirit, but we dont all receive all of the same gifts.
The fact of the matter is that Chapter 16 of John’s Gospel - as well as several other Chapters- is written during the Last Supper when only the Apostles were present - the first 12 Apostles, that is When Jesus said the “Spirit of Truth will guide YOU into all truth” He was speaking exclusively to the Apostles, and meant that the Spirit of Truth will guide the Apostles into all truth. This does not mean that you and I wont also have all truth revealed to us, but if you make that claim you had better be prepared to back it up with something other than John 16 and a vague promise of “a closer look at the text”. Otherwise you simply look foolish. :yup: It has nothing to do with trusting the Holy Spirit, it has nothing to do with Spiritual acumen, it has nothing to do with which church one attends, it has nothing to do with one’s degree of sincerity and it has absolutely nothing to do with taking a “closer look at the text”. Christ was speaking to the Apostles and no one else.

 

[Philthy]

Eden,

I have responde to that “claim” by an article I published here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

John you are too funny! Matthias wasnt an apostle? Doncha think Paul or somebody somewhere along the line would have even HINTED at this travesty? Paul wasnt shy to correct Rock when he erred, why would Paul be silent on this? Sorry, it makes no sense…
And one last thing - why exactly did this little story make it into Scipture?

 

[Odell]

Odell,
That’s exactly what I’m saying… and that is what Magicsilence said also… I think you might be missing something Odell. Jesus statement in John 16 exlpicitly implicates the Holy Spirit as the one who is to reveal truth, by ignoring that truth you only give yourself the option of trusting “flesh and blood” to reveal things to you.

I think you might be missing somthing John. Please tell me where i have said that Holy Spirit does not reveal truth. show me that post. The Holy Spirit reveals its truth threw the Church. Not you John. I would be trusting flesh and blood if I followed you out of the Church.

1 Timothy 4:1-4 is only referring to things to be eaten, and then only specifically referring to animals (meats). Verse 4 is the one that tells us that specifically. Are you under the impression that cocaine is an animal, or that alcohol is an animal? Or are you claiming that the grape is an animal?

I was simply responding to the your coment about mushrooms and marijuna. Did you not refer to drugs. I thought you may.

The Catholic Church does forbid marriage for priests, bishops, popes, that is not forbidding marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those ministers actually cannot competently do the work of God without a helpmeet. Paul also describes the qualifications for a bishop… 1 Timothy 3:2 says a Bishop should be the husband of one wife… not 0 wives.

Now you are showing your ignorance. since you have not takeing the time to look into this. since most of the time you try to prover the Church to be wrong instead of look at what does it actually teach. Ill give you a little lession. There have been popes who have been married. There are numerous priest that are married. So stop teaching people that we forbid marriage. As a man of God you are suposed to give people what others really teach not false teaching that you throw at the Church for simply try to prove them wrong. A man of God gives truth and i would really like for you to respect my religion and at least disagree with what we really believe. That goes for all religions do you research before you open your mouth.

I gave you a verse on Poul you said that it was maybe because of the wifes death. our she left him because of his conversion. But Paul says in
(1Cor 7:32-35) “I should like you to be free of anxieties An unmarried man is anxious about the thinks of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.” Sounds like he may shose to be celeibate

read on to verse 35 “I am telling you this for your benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you.” Just as the Church does we dont restrain no one. But it is a benifit that you acuse the Church of doing. Again I go go back into the whole rules deal if you like.

The Holy Spirit Is talking to me John and the Baptist Church does not teach the benifit of celebate men as Paul does so you cant be the true Church because you teach oposite of Paul as well.

That question has no foundation in truth at all. I am working on an article that will give you all the information you asked for… and then some. I will send you a link to it, or post it to this thread when I am done (it will be much too large for posting here).

I want you to post it for it would be easier for us to cratique.

I don’t personally claim to be the only true church, I only claim to be part of the true church, which is a spiritual kingdom with Christ as it’s head… which is joined together by the Holy Spirit now, but will not be physically joined together until we get to heaven.
John

your theolagy is not scriptural. Catholics believe we are the Church and are physically joined together with those in heaven now. Just as the bible teaches.

Also I asked how can you be the true Church if you did not get it from the apostles? Was it the bible? You said yes it was the bible. But see the complete bible was not complete untile 300 some years after Jesus.

Your Church would not exist if it was not for the bible John.
But the truth is the Church gave the world the bible the church is older than the bible. The Church was founded on the apostles not founded on a bible.

 

[Image_of_God]

I hope this helps the debate

The marks of the True Church:

(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.

It is okay to pray to Mary, this is what the early Church did. And it is only characteristic of the Church to do this.

(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc. (17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.

It is okay for us to pray for intersession of the saints, for this is what the Early Church did, and certainly, the true Church would not be offended by this.

1. If anyone does not confess that the holy Virgin is truly the Mother of God, etc.

(For Protestants in general, who reject the term “Mother of God.”)
It is okay to call Mary, Mother of God, this is what the Early Church did, and the True Church would do this.

and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth.

*I only emphasized Roman to show that the True Church is in communion with Rome.

THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICEA 787 A.D.
newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm

 

[Odell]

Odell,
That’s exactly what I’m saying… and that is what Magicsilence said also… I think you might be missing something Odell. Jesus statement in John 16 exlpicitly implicates the Holy Spirit as the one who is to reveal truth, by ignoring that truth you only give yourself the option of trusting “flesh and blood” to reveal things to you.

One other thing. You acknowledge That The Church was founded on the apostles. Whom the Catholic Church claims to have its foundation from, the apostolic succession. You claim this is relaying the foundation! Do you not think that the True Church would claim to be founded by Jesus Christ? Yet you claim you where not. Because you didnt get your Church from the apostles. Or else you would believe in apostolic succession. You got your Church from the bible and your false interpritations. Which you readely admit to geting your Chruch from, the bible. The Church Gave the world the bible John. And the Church is there for its interpritation. For there is no scripture for private interpritation. This would be like me writing a book and you telling me what the book means. And I tell you no its not what it means. You say yes it does.

Now really who is RE-LAYING the foundation. The one who claims to have it from the very beginng(Catholic Church). Or the one who does not claim to get it from the origenal foundation.(YOU)

See you cant be the true Chruch because you dont claim to be the one Jesus founded. The true Chruch would at least claim to be.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Tantum ergo,

So are you opting out of the “what if” question? If you are, could it be because you have elevated the traditions of the Catholic Church to a higher level than Jesus Christ Himself?

That is impossible. The Traditions of the Catholic Church are the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Here’s a question for you. What if the Bible contradicted your conscience? What would you do? Would you stop studying the Bible?

Moral issues: Alcohol consumption,

Where exactly does the Bible condemn all alcohol consumption? Jesus turned water into wine, used wine at the Last Supper, and Paul advised Timothy to use “a little wine for his stomach.”

endorsement of immodest dress and rock and roll concerts (labor day picnics); conformity to the world.

Where exactly does the Catholic Church endorse immodest dress? Every summer, our bullitens ask people to dress modestly to show respect for others and the Blessed Sacrament. As for rock and roll (and labor day picnics), surely you don’t subscribe to the rediculous notions that “rock and roll is the devil’s music?” I would also like to know where the Bible condemns picnics. If your quarrel is with the idea that rock and roll music glorifies sex, violence, and drug use, then yes, Catholics would dissaprove of them. But you can’t say that the electric guitar is evil in and of itself. Itis the lyrics of any song that can be good or bad. (If I wrote a classical music piece thati glorified promiscuous sex, would it still be morally superior to a Christian rock song that praised Christ?)

Doctrinal issues: Celibacy of Priests (mockery of the sanctity of marriage and what it illustrates),

What’s this? The Catholic Church instructs people to conform to the world, but when it upholds the countercultural idea that human beings can live a perfectly fine life without sex, it’s bad? Did St. Paul’s celibacy (or Jesus’ celibacy) mock the sanctity of marriage?
Properly understood, celibacy actually AFFIRMS the sanctity of marriage. A priest offers marriage (and sex) as a sacrifice to God. Only a good and holy thing can be offered in sacrifice. Therefore, marriage must be a good and holy thing.
For that matter, Catholics view marriage as a sacrament, a physical channel of God’s grace to our lives. It also view marriage as a holy vocation, a calling from God.

Eucharist (misrepresentation of Christs body),

Jesus said, “This is my body.” God said it, I believe it.

Marianism, etc. (the other issues being discussed on these forums…

John
www.gideonsword.net

I’ve replied to this on other forums, so I’m not going to repeat myself. But Marianism does not take away from Christ. Rather, it shows Christ’s power.

 

[bibleapologist]

Magic silence,

Thank you for referring to the article, and posting your critique.

However I believe in the first statement of your rebuttal you made a crucial error…

do believe that Jesus used the same word “meat” here when discussing both the meat that perish and the meat which gives eternal life.

What reason is there to assume that Christ did not mean meat (“food” in the Jerusalem bible)?

You have failed to recognize that to “eat the flesh”, and “drink the blood” is meant exactly the same as “believe”. Jesus made this very clear in this verse… which you failed to quote.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus did not allude to the act of eating or drinking in this verse… only that one “come to Him”, and “believe”. That is how you partake of the “Bread of Life”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

In response to MrS… but as blanket answer to all those who have alluded to revelation being exclusive to the Apostles…

MrS said…

Promise that the Holy Spirit would lead into all Truth was made to the Apostles and hence their successors.

Jesus said in John 16…

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

The Apostle Paul, who had that truth said this of God who would have all people come to the knowledge of truth…

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And this knowledge of truth is revealed to common men “who love Christ” by the Holy Spirit…

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things

Paul did not isolate himself or the other Apostles in that statement, but he included himself as one of those who “love him”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

The Real Presence in the Eucharist could not be more explicit. Once again, scripturecatholic.com proves this teaching using the Word of God:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

Not only do we have the Word of God as evidence, we have the testimony of the earliest Christians that Jesus is present in the consecrated Eucharist. Here are some:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” *Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). *

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200). *

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200). *

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). *

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). *

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” *Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212). *

 

[Eden]

The sample of quotes from early Christians testifiying to the Real Presence in the Eucharist are all from Christians living before the Bible Canon was set. You can find many more on the scripturecatholic link provided above.

Now, I ask you, bibleapologist, can you provide even one quote from an early Christian before the Canon was set (pre-390 A.D. or so) that describes the Eucharist as symbolic?

More quotes from early Christians on the Real Presence:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

John you are too funny! Matthias wasnt an apostle? Doncha think Paul or somebody somewhere along the line would have even HINTED at this travesty? Paul wasnt shy to correct Rock when he erred, why would Paul be silent on this? Sorry, it makes no sense…
And one last thing - why exactly did this little story make it into Scipture?

I am currently involved with another debate on another thread of this forum entitled "Succession of Bishops". You are welcome to go there and read my answers regarding this topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

See you cant be the true Chruch because you dont claim to be the one Jesus founded.

Actually yes I do claim to be part of the Church Jesus founded. It is not a fellowship in the physical sense, but the true Church is a kingdom of the spiritual sort…

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Valient Lucy,

What if the Bible contradicted your conscience? What would you do? Would you stop studying the Bible?

Yes I would… and I think I already affirmed that. Although I believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant inspired preserved Word of God, I don’t subscribe completely with Luther’s Sola Scriptura. The Bible was given not as the only source of revelation, but as an affirmation of that revelation from God to use as a comparison with the truth that has been revealed, and an accurate historical reference.

Where exactly does the Bible condemn all alcohol consumption? Jesus turned water into wine, used wine at the Last Supper, and Paul advised Timothy to use “a little wine for his stomach.”

You are beating a dead horse here. We have already been through this. The Catholic church has misinterpreted the distinction between “old wine” and “new wine”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

There have been popes who have been married. There are numerous priest that are married. So stop teaching people that we forbid marriage. As a man of God you are suposed to give people what others really teach not false teaching that you throw at the Church for simply try to prove them wrong.

Would you please tell me how I interpreted this wrong?..

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Odell,

Would you please tell me how I interpreted this wrong?..

John
www.gideonsword.net

Are you familiar with the rites within the Church? What Protestants refer to as “Roman Catholic” is more accurately termed “Latin Rite”. In the Catholic Church’s Eastern Rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Latin Rite. And if a man who is married and converts to Catholicism wishes to become a priest, he may do so and remain married. But given that celibacy is a gift from God (Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:7), how can a man who follows the Word of God object to the celibacy of the priesthood?

In fact, given the teachings on celibacy in the Word of God, one has to wonder, where are the Baptists who have “made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”?

I know of not one Baptist who has declared themselves celibate for the kingdom of heaven. Celibacy is good and holy. We learn this from both Jesus and St. Paul in the Word of God. Some men are so holy that they imitate Christ right down to sacrificing marriage for the sake of the kingdom. But where are the examples in the Baptist church?

 

[Philthy]

Odell,
Would you please tell me how I interpreted this wrong?..
John
www.gideonsword.net

Since you asked so nicely I will tell where you are wrong.
You claimed that the Catholic Church forbids marriage when IN FACT they do not. In FACT the Catholic Church has married more people than any other institution, and holds marriage in such high esteem that it is a Sacrament.
The Latin rite of the Catholic Church has a discipline of having celibate priests. They follow in the footsteps of Paul and Jesus as others have pointed out. It is too bad that your pride interferes with your ability to see the value of celibacy in the same way that Paul and Jesus did and that you dont recogize the failings of your own church in this respect.
You are apparently incapable of understanding the difference of abstaining from something good for a greater good. Paul was perfectly clear on this point - he discussed regarding celibacy, he discussed it regarding sex for the married and he discussed regarding fasting. Your sophmoric logic regarding the church is analogous to claiming that the Catholic Church forbids eating, when in fact, it does not. It simply observes days of fasting - like you know who - but again in your apparent zeal to condemn the Catholic Church you don’t see the Scriptural basis for these disciplines.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I am currently involved with another debate on another thread of this forum entitled "Succession of Bishops". You are welcome to go there and read my answers regarding this topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Thanks for the invite! Please dont forget to rebut my analysis of the meaning of “you” in John 16:13 here on this thread - it has nothing to do with an argument over succession…You have two huge pillars that your theology rests upon and you have not been very convincing in establishing them as of yet. They are:

• The canon of Scripture is known apart from the Church
• The full truth of Scripture is revealed perfectly to each individual believer by the holy Spirit…