It is a discipline taught by the church, not a dogma. As such, it can change. But, since neither Paul nor Christ were married, except to the church (here we go again!), it is thought best that priests follow that example and become espoused only to the church.
Excuse me? Where on earth did you get such an idea? Did you read (Matthew 19:12) “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Even though Christ’s words have been translated here, it seems clear enough. Look at your bible, it says the same thing.
Thank you, Lord, for giving me patience. I am on my way to Sainthood! Q: How can you drink judgment/condemnation/damnation unto yourself by unworthily eating bread, drinking wine and remembering Jesus? A: You can’t.
It is documented in a verse that Evangelicals de-emphasize. It is called the “Power to bind and loose” Christ gave it to Peter in Matthew 16:19. It refers to the power Peter, and his successors, have to shape church practices (NOT dogma). It is not limited to just that. Christ said “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” What does that mean in the Evangelical church? Anything at all? Was Jesus just waxing poetic, or did he really mean it?
Councils in and of themselves are not infallible. In union with the Pope, they are.
I think most of them never really understood the Teachings at all. Then, having been poorly catechized, they become prey of the ignorant and malicious. That was the case for me, anyway.
Or, just the well-intentioned. But, we know where that road leads…
Look at the context of Matthew 19:1-12. Its not about church leadership but about being married or not and the kingdom.
No. I’m saying the catholic church in many cases has circumvented the scriptures to support some of their doctrines and practices.
Lets see how this works out. Paul in his letters lays out the qualifications for church leadership. Part of the qualifications was the man was to be married. The catholic church comes along later a overturnes the apostolic teaching (Paul). Paul was an apostle of Christ and carries the authority of Christ. You evidently must have a greater authority than an apostle of Christ since your church has circumvented this teaching by making celibacy a requirement and effectively locking out married men for the mere fact they are married. This is a classic example of the catholic church contradicting the scriptures.
What is the context of the passage for this in Matthew 18:15-20? Its about church discipline. To say it means something else is to pervert the scriptures.
Do you believe then that being married with children was used as a criteria to determine what kind of leader that man would be?
No, otherwise we would not have much of the New Testament as Paul would not have qualified as a leader since he was unmarried.
No, but that one could have only one wife or none as qualification. You’re jumping to conclusions
… If that!Look up I Timothy 3:4-5 and see if i am. You will also find other qualifications here to.No, but that one could have only one wife or none as qualification. You’re jumping to conclusions
It does not follow that if Paul was single ( we really don’t know for sure) it would not disqualify him. Paul was an apostle which was a unique and limited office in the NT church.
Look the primary teaching on church leadership in I Timothy 3:1-12 and you will find how he viewed married men with children as excellent canidates for leadership in the church.
The context is not about church leadership but about relationships and the kingdom.
i think i might have read it some time ago. I look at it again.
Have you ever heard of the Knights of Columbus? They’re certainly lay leaders within the Church. And Paul’s recommendation isn’t at all in refernce to leadership, only in conduction of everyday lives
OK, so in addition to the Septuagint, you might as well rip out all of the Pauline letters, since, by your standard, he was an unmarried hypocrite.
How does this follow? If Christ instructed Paul who may have been single to make married men with children a good canidate leadership then how does that make him a hypocrite?
There is a lot here. Take John 6. Where is the eurachrist mention in that entire chapter?
I’m referring to leadership in the catholic that nullifies him from leadership because he is married. No matter how qualified he is for the position he is disqualified immediately because he is married.Have you ever heard of the Knights of Columbus? They’re certainly lay leaders within the Church. And Paul’s recommendation isn’t at all in refernce to leadership, only in conduction of everyday lives
So you’re only referring to the priesthood, and you would seem to be inferring that the only power in the Church belongs to the clergy?