How can you hear or read and not interpret what you hear and read?
Did not the church for centuries have a leaders who were married? Was not Peter married?So now the bishop not only has to be married but he also ‘has to manage his children well’, eh?
So much for a poor man if he gets married and for some reason they have no children. No bishopric for you, sir!
Or heaven forbid that after years of managing his children ‘well’, one of them goes ‘off’, perhaps when said bishop is 70 and son is 50. Take that bishopric away, sir! Your son is no longer well managed–therefore, you have forfeited your ‘leadership role’ and been found wanting.
Good grief.
You see what happens when people take Scripture and interpret it for themselves without considering context, history, etc. They come up with completely false notions of what they think the text says. Another good reason why St. Peter warned us about not ‘personally interpreting’ Scripture but instead to seek authority. All these ‘churches’ of “me and Jesus” based on what one person ‘interprets’ from Scripture and thinks must be authoritative because, hey, I’m tight with Jesus, I know I am, and He must be leading me because I just feel I’m right. . .heck, I know I’m right because what I think doesn’t agree with Catholics and god knows the one constant in the universe is that whatever a Catholic thinks is wrong, wrong, wrong. . . .
The Catholic Church does not restrict or mandate celibacy. In the Eastern Catholic Church, there are married priests. In the Latin Rite (Roman), married men can be ordain priest through what is called the Pastoral Provision. If it was mandated, there would be no married Catholic priest.
In the Roman Catholic rite married are disqualified from leadership (bishop or priest for example). Correct?
We know from I Timothy 3 that married men with families were not disqualified from leadership.
i have learned quite a bit on these forums.
Catholics do claim to possess the “fullness of truth” and i’m trying to learn exactly what that is in all its fullness. I’m finding that it actually causes quite a number of problems.
i’m pretty dense and persistent. Whats getting into my head is not what you may want…
J4 i dont think we are talking about the same thing here.
The correct name is Joseph Smith and the doctrine centers on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is viewed as a modern prophet like Moses or Peter.
Just because the Bible was officially compiled roughly 300 years after the fullness of the priesthood was lost does not infer the Bible is void of any truth. We believe many truths were preserved in the bible and therefore accept it “as far as it is translated correctly.”
I see no “LDS reasoning” presented. The reasoning presented is Catholic.
We have a similar but slightly different opinion. lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=00d51b3e50cf5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
To be fair we do have a foundation. We have a legitimate claim to having proper authority. We have solid doctrine. Whether or not you accept those claims and doctrines is another story.
The gospel of christ has been on the earth beginning with Adam. Many prophets prophesied of his coming before he came and taught that only through faith in the Messiah (Jesus Christ) could men be saved. The laws of sacrifice, principles of faith and obedience have always existed. And various aspects of that gospel were merely modified at his coming as they had been fulfilled. What is now Judaism was once Christs church. What is now Catholicism at its origin was once Christs church. Having served in Asia and learned a little about some of the Asian religions I have wondered if they too might have, at some far distant time, been Christs church. At present the LDS church is Christs church in it full form.
If you looking for some statement that says you must interpret the Scriptures for yourself you won’t find something like that. Rather the Scriptures do acknowledge that men can understand it if they are willing to seek.
I do and i listen and read material that further’ my understanding of it.
All Christians need to be knowledgeable about the Scriptures. Most of it can be understood if one is willing to the work. I go to church to learn, worship and minister. I still have much to learn. There are many teachers who can teach me.
Actually its both.
I am able on my own to be nourished by the Scriptures but i also need to be taught by those who are more knowledgeable than i am. I also teach others who may not know that much either. Its on going process of give and take…
Thats why dialogue is so important. I have found many people on these forums who are quite defensive and nasty when we don’t agree.
never mind who is nasty. what you need to do is to be open. you need to understand that maybe there is more to it than you ever known.If you looking for some statement that says you must interpret the Scriptures for yourself you won’t find something like that. Rather the Scriptures do acknowledge that men can understand it if they are willing to seek.
but J4 you dont accept anything teachings of the CC that is not written in the Bible. yet you want me to accept your teachings that is not written in the Bible. do you see my point.
I do and i listen and read material that further’ my understanding of it.
why? cant you enterpret the Bible for yourself?
All Christians need to be knowledgeable about the Scriptures. Most of it can be understood if one is willing to the work. I go to church to learn, worship and minister. I still have much to learn. There are many teachers who can teach me.
Learn what? do you need teachers to teach you the Word? why? did you not tell me you can enterpret SS?
Actually its both.
I am able on my own to be nourished by the Scriptures but i also need to be taught by those who are more knowledgeable than i am. I also teach others who may not know that much either. Its on going process of give and take…
**i get it. you just acknowledge to me you cant really enterpret SS you need someone else to teach you. thank you. **
Thats why dialogue is so important. I have found many people on these forums who are quite defensive and nasty when we don’t agree.
No, it doesn’t. Which is why not every Protestant would adhere to your definition of Sola Scriptura.
I agree. However, since that was written before there was a NT, or any gospels, how did they do that? What was this “Word of Christ” other than the Sacred Tradition taught to them by the Apostle. Where does it say this Word of Christ that was richly dwelling in the believers “disappeared”?
I think it is humanly impossible. The mind automatically interprets everything in a way that it can make the most sense out of. The mind will even insert or impose constructs so that data will make sense.
Jesus was a rabbi. The ruler did the right thing in coming to the Teaching Authority. His understanding was corrected by that Authority.
Of course, and still does. In fact, the vast majority of leaders in the parishes are married. You are confusing leadership with ordination. Most ordained persons are not “leaders” but servants. Every once in a while, an ordained person will distinguish himself in leadership. Fr. Corapi. Now there is a leader!
No, this is not correct. In fact, if you had read the post right before this one, you would have seen examples. Most leadership in the Latin Rite in the United States is provided by laypersons.
…what? I never knew my church’s congregation was a business institution. I love how you know so much about my church, did you attend it?
Yes, but such certainty is unavalaible to you, since you have rejected the Apostolic Teachings.
Since the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God what is greater or equal to it?
Well, there is obviously God Himself: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (you know, the Paraclete who is to ‘guide us to all truth’). The Word of God is great, but God Himself is greater, no?
The problem is that the passage in I Timothy 3 about leadership is not a discipline but a requirement.
.
There were “tests” that each book of the NT had to pass before it was included in the canon. One of the tests it had to pass was it Scripture.
2 separate issues. The Marian doctrines cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Her supposed immaculate conception and assumption are to doctrines not found in Scripture. You also do not find Christians praying to her in Scripture.
Not so. Just because people can get something right on one thing does not mean they will get everything right. That’s why each doctrine and practice must be examined and tested.
Of course it has an impact. Just because you haven’t found her bones does not mean she was assumed into heaven. If you accept that then you would have to believe that all the people mentioned in the Scriptures in whom we have not found their bones must also been taken up directly to heaven.
.
True. What catholics do is to read into this passage more than there is.
Not so. No doubt Peter was one of the main leaders in the NT church. However, there were others (James and John) for example. Look also at Acts 15 where James has the final say on what must be done.
There is a lot here. One thing we do know from Acts is that Peter will be the one to open the door to kingdom of God for all the people to enter not by his own merits but by preaching the gospel.
