What Is Your Authority?

[NotWorthy]

There are limitations on this formum to do so. Let me though give you a few more:
Doctrine of the Trinity
Deity of Christ
Man’s fall
Forgiveness is only through and by Christ
Salvation is only through faith

Where are these lists? You mentioned that these were lists found in Scripture. I don’t find the Doctrine of the Trinity found in Scripture as a list.

Is he the exception to the rule?
Can any roman catholic married man where you go to church become a priest while married?

Of course not. I get your point, but you seem to ignore why the Church does this. The question is authority. Does the Church have the authority to implement this Discipline, and does She have the authority to lift this restriction? As demonstrated in Acts 15 and Galatians (where the Noahide restrictions are implemented and then found to be released - I believe it’s Galatians), the Church does have this authority.

How is it that the practice or implementation of a Discipline can be a sin?

Do you accept the Church’s authority to Bind and Loose? If so, then you’re eating of meat on a Friday is sinful if the Church is implementing the abstaining from meat.

What is the doctrine behind this Discipline?

As explained above, Acts and Galatians, regarding the Noahide rules is an example.

i have read various things about it. Why did they?

If you’ve read them, what do you think. I’ll answer for you, but I just want to see what you think of these restrictions and why the Church feels She needs them.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3167558]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does Paul in his letters make celibacy a requirement for leadership?
Where does he teach that to eat meat is a sin in and of itself?

Both these questions are like those “So, when did you stop beating your wife?” questions. They are based on false premises.
guanophore
No where does Paul make celibacy a requirement for leadership. Neither does the Catholic Church, which is led majorily by lay persons in many and various positions of parish leadership.

Are there any married bishops-cardinals or popes in the catholic church today who are married?

You are equating priesthood with leadership. This is a false assumption.

Are not the priests the leaders in a parish?

The Church does not teach anywhere that eating any food is a sin in and of itself. This is calumny.

Is it not true or was true that there was a time that if you did meat on a Friday it was a sin? If so, what made it so?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3167478]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You do realize that you church has offically interpreted less than 20 verses of the entire Bible don’t you?
guanophore
That is because Catholics have received the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, which is that the scriptures are to be taken as a whole, not piecemealed a verse at a time. You will note that Jesus did not do this either!

It seems to me then without understanding what the details are of the scriptures so much is missed then. It is so easy to make the big picture look right but when the details of it are examined we find serious problems that will affect the big picture.

 

[po18guy]

Warning to other thread participants

Amen! If he continues to flaunt forum rule #7, click on the triangle of death. Per scripture, I now treat him as a Gentile or tax collector.

 

[davidv]

Are there any married bishops-cardinals or popes in the catholic church today who are married?

As far as I know – No.

Are not the priests the leaders in a parish?

Yes, but only one of several. Others that may be leaders in some parishes include. parish council members, directors of religious education, volunteer coordinators, music directors, etc.

Is it not true or was true that there was a time that if you did meat on a Friday it was a sin? If so, what made it so?

This is true. It was so because the Church defined it as a requirement, and disobedience of the Church is the same as disobedience to God.

 

[mercygate]

Point on the celibacy issue. The Church adopts her position on clerical celibacy, not just on the practical matters Paul points out, but on Our Lord’s own counsel. Celibacy is a sign of the Resurrection.

In Mt. 22, Jesus comments that in the Resurrection, there is no marriage and in Mt 19:11-12, he says, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Someone once tried to tell me that this referred only to literal, physical castration. Don’t know quite how he figured that one into “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

So, as a matter of discipline, the Church has asked that only men who are willing to embrace the highest expression of dedication to Christ present themselves as candidates for Priestly service.

 

[justasking4]

Amen! If he continues to flaunt forum rule #7, click on the triangle of death. Per scripture, I now treat him as a Gentile or tax collector.

:tsktsk:

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3169485]Point on the celibacy issue. The Church adopts her position on clerical celibacy, not just on the practical matters Paul points out, but on Our Lord’s own counsel. Celibacy is a sign of the Resurrection.
This is the first i have seen “Celibacy is a sign of the Resurrection”. Where does this come from?

In Mt. 22, Jesus comments that in the Resurrection, there is no marriage and in Mt 19:11-12, he says, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Who is intepreting the Scriptures this way in your church? Is this from the Vatican or high authority that is making this connection?

Someone once tried to tell me that this referred only to literal, physical castration. Don’t know quite how he figured that one into “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

So, as a matter of discipline, the Church has asked that only men who are willing to embrace the highest expression of dedication to Christ present themselves as candidates for Priestly service.

Do you think that protestant married ministers are able to be fully dedicated to Christ and the church?

Do you also think that your average priest actually is always 24/7 engaged or focused on serving the church at all costs?

 

[mercygate]

Who is intepreting the Scriptures this way in your church? Is this from the Vatican or high authority that is making this connection? This is the first i have seen “Celibacy is a sign of the Resurrection”. Where does this come from?

It comes from the challenge of the Sadducees to Jesus about the woman with seven husbands in Mt 22, Mk 12 and Lk 20. Jesus’ summation in Luke is particularly poignant:

“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

Here is a link to an explanation. It starts out with a quotation from the official document of the Second Vatican Council on this.

"Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven was recommended by Christ the Lord. It has been freely accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the centuries as well as in our own time, and has always been highly esteemed in a special way by the Church as a feature of priestly life. For it is at once a sign of pastoral charity and an incentive to it as well as being in a special way a source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world" (No. 16). While recognizing that celibacy is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, the Council affirmed ways celibacy is in harmony with the priesthood: Through celibacy, a priest, identifying himself with Christ, dedicates his whole life to the service of his Lord and the church. Celibacy enables the priest to focus entirely on building up the kingdom of God here and now. Priests can “cling to Christ with undivided hearts and dedicate themselves more freely in Him and through Him to the service of God and of men” (No. 16). They are a sign in this world of the union of the Church to her spouse, Christ, and of the life in the world to come “in which the children of the resurrection shall neither be married nor take wives” (Lk 20:35-367).

Do you think that protestant married ministers are able to be fully dedicated to Christ and the church? It is not my place to judge the spirituality of protestant clergy.

Do you also think that your average priest actually is always 24/7 engaged or focused on serving the church at all costs?

Again, if a Priest goes to a Yankee game, that does not detract from the “big picture” of his spirituality.

These two questions are not addressed to the authority of the Church to set a discipline for her clergy that embraces the highest counsel of Our Lord.

 

[jmcrae]

What makes you think that you can’t be just as holy being married? i don’t know anything in scripture that tells me otherwise.

You just quoted it. (Do you read what you write?)

I think Paul is expressing something that is a truism in that being married causes people to have divided interests in relation to Christ.

And a “divided interest” is a bad thing. Right? It is less holy to have a divided heart, than it is to have a heart set only upon Jesus.

No?

He is not mandating this as a requirement for leadership.

Not in so many words, but I think we can easily conclude that a celibate leadership, which has its heart set fully upon Jesus, is more desirable than a leadership with a divided heart, partly set upon Jesus, and partly set upon the concerns of this world.

At least, that’s what I get out of that passage.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
So, as a matter of discipline, the Church has asked that only men who are willing to embrace the highest expression of dedication to Christ present themselves as candidates for Priestly service.
Do you think that protestant married ministers are able to be fully dedicated to Christ and the church?

Do you also think that your average priest actually is always 24/7 engaged or focused on serving the church at all costs?

Typical puritan thinking. Any request from “an authority figure who is not ‘my personal conscience’” is to be held suspect, especially if the requested behavior is “difficult” in some fashion.

Justasking, you raise good questions in response to the statements, and we’re very grateful for how they illustrate the things that folks like yourself think are “important”.

 

[celticcrusader]

***Hi, celticcrusader (the team or the people?)

Paul is not talking exclusively about marriage; he is actually counter posing values: those who serve the Lord, as he does, in celibacy do well because they occupy themselves only with the Lord (v. 6-7).
CELTIC THE PEOPLE. using D/R version , I don’t see it. are we not all working for the LORD? I just don’t see church leadership in chap.7 ? how did people read scripture before it was put into verses???***

 

[jcrichton]

***Hi, celticcrusader (the team or the people?)

Paul is not talking exclusively about marriage; he is actually counter posing values: those who serve the Lord, as he does, in celibacy do well because they occupy themselves only with the Lord (v. 6-7).

CELTIC THE PEOPLE***

.

using D/R version , I don’t see it. are we not all working for the LORD? I just don’t see church leadership in chap.7 ? how did people read scripture before it was put into verses???***Hi, celticcrusader!

Love the music!***

I did not say that Paul was speaking on Church leadership–though something must be amiss if we can determine from this passage that his words were meant only for non-leaders ("…and I mean only you, not the Church leadership!" …kind of does not quite makes it, don’t you think?)

Paul was speaking on both God’s Commandments and his own personal views; he places himself among those who serve Jesus and claims that he too is lead by the Holy Spirit to understand what God wants of us. He himself opts for a service in a celibate state and expresses his desire for others to serve as he does. Paul breaks it down this way: married couples must serve the Lord as non-married Christians; yet, those who are married are divided as they must also cope with their spouses and their children, while those who choose not to marry (celibates) have only the Lord as their single concern. He even counsels the widows (we must understand that this would also be applicable to widowers) to not get remarried after the death of their spouses so that they can dedicate more of themselves to the Lord.

The Hebrew Language, as I understand it, (at least during Paul’s lifetime) was written from the first character to the last without the modern Grammatical accidents (paragraph, comma, period, semicolon, colon, exclamation marks, question marks, hyphens, italics, quotations, etc.); these nuances, as well as the vowels, are hidden within the language structure itself… how the various books were broken down into pages, and paragraphs, and sentences is unknown to me–it must have been really interesting work, though. (I imagine that there could have been times when a portions of Scriptures were debated as to the correct contextural translation since the original writers were no longer around to guide the readers/interpreters as to what they may or may not have been emphasizing/highlighting…)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

Are there any married bishops-cardinals or popes in the catholic church today who are married?

Not that I know of. The more a person advances in responsibility for the flock, the more important it is that they not be distracted by the cares of this world.

Are not the priests the leaders in a parish?

Not necessarily. Some very good priests are gifted in the care of souls, but are just not natural leaders. This is not a problem, because the call to priesthood involves very specific duties, and is not necessarily related to leadership.

Is it not true or was true that there was a time that if you did meat on a Friday it was a sin? If so, what made it so?

The Church speaks on behalf of Christ:

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

When a specific discipline is promulgated, we accept it as though Christ Himself is speaking. The sin is one of disobedience.

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me then without understanding what the details are of the scriptures so much is missed then. It is so easy to make the big picture look right but when the details of it are examined we find serious problems that will affect the big picture.

I see your point, but looking at scripture as a whole in no way means that details cannot be examined. I agree with you that so much is missed when details are not examined. It was the study of the Greek meanings that got me learning about my faith in the first place.

The Catholic Church teaches that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. It is wrong to miss the forest for getting lost in the trees. This is what happens when a person tries to parse each verse in isolation from the others.

 

[guanophore]

Do you think that protestant married ministers are able to be fully dedicated to Christ and the church?

I have known many very holy and dedicated ministers. If they are faithful to their marriage, then by defintion, they must be giving attention on how to please their spouse and raise children. To the extent they do this as they should, it cuts down on ministering to the larger flock of God.

Do you also think that your average priest actually is always 24/7 engaged or focused on serving the church at all costs?

Some of them are. It is an ideal for which all should strive. The goal in choosing those who are consecrated is that they should do this.