Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don't really know it?

[Mannyfit75]

Would you agree that this goes against the scripture?

It doesn’t.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

In a parish where there is a priest who ultimately has the final say?

Why should not a married man be able to “say mass”?

You mean, “say Mass”, and apparantly Mannyfit’s **married **chaplain can.

A good pastor does not seek his own profit, rather, the good of his congregation. If his congregation does not like his decision, they can go to another parish or meet with the pastor to discuss the problem.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I may have to admit you are correct on this one.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

Maybe that refers to “sister-wife” as well. I think it unlikely that Peter would have left his family in Capernaum while he went traipsing off to follow Jesus. It may have also been possible that his children were grown suffiiently when he was called, and it is also improtant to note, once again, that celibacy was a discipline that developed over time, rather than one that was there from the start.

Aren’t we going back to something, now, that we already covered?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Maybe that refers to “sister-wife” as well. I think it unlikely that Peter would have left his family in Capernaum while he went traipsing off to follow Jesus. It may have also been possible that his children were grown suffiiently when he was called, and it is also improtant to note, once again, that celibacy was a discipline that developed over time, rather than one that was there from the start.

Aren’t we going back to something, now, that we already covered?

I think Peter’s children were already of age and can handle themselves. Celibacy did develop over time.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I think Peter’s children were already of age and can handle themselves. Celibacy did develop over time.

Weren’t we just using Paul’s statement that ministers should remain single “as he does” as reinforcement of the Church’s discipline?
Yeah, we’re way off track now.

The bottom line is, the Church generally prefers its clergy to be unmarried, though there are exceptions. No one has the right to be a priest (This applies to the idea of women priests as well).
No one is accepted into Catholic seminary without the approval of their local bishop.

 

[guanophore]

Paul never recommends celibacy as a requirement for leadership. Look at I Timothy 3. Its unbibilical because celibacy as a requirement to serve as priest, bishop etc. Are you aware that Peter was married?

Actually, he does! He states clearly that, in his opinion, it is better for everyone to remain as he is (celibate). Jesus also states that some are eunuchs for the Kingdom, and that he who is able to receive this, should receive it. You are confusing leadership with a call to the celibate life. Roman Rite Catholic priests are not the same as Protestant “leaders” or pastors. Priests are considered to represent Christ to the Church,a nd are espoused to the Church, just as Jesus is. In the Latin Rite, this would mean having more than one spouse!

Yes, Peter was married, but we have no evidence that he ever went back to a “normal” married life after he was called. At one point, he states that he has left “everything” to follow Christ, and as far as we know, this included his family. We hear no more about them, so we don’t know for sure.

In a parish where there is a priest who ultimately has the final say?

Jesus, an unmarried man, has the final say in the Cathlic Church. the authority in the parish depends upon the leadership style in the parish. Some parishes are so small or have so little participation that the priest has to do everything. Some are so active that the lay people do most of the leadership. Ulitmately, the Pastor is responsible for the souls of his flock,a nd over him, the Bishop. What was it you wanted to have “final say” about that you could not because you were married?

Why should not a married man be able to “say mass”?

Married priests are obligated to say the Mass, just as celibate priests are.

At this point i’m not saying its a requirement

At last! We are finally getting somewhere!

but that married men with a family are excellent candidates for being a bishop. Rome has essentially nullified this.

As you know,when Paul wrote those instructions the Church was in it’s infancy. He was willing to accept even the least qualified person for leadership, trusting in God’s grace. Since that time, the Church has had the best experiences with unmarried clergy, so she prefers those. “Rome” has not “nullified” anything. Rome just does not agree with your own private interpretation of scripture. She also knows that she has the authority to bind and loose,and if she wants to prefer celibate clergy, Jesus has bound this in heaven as well.

Your right. However, its up to you to support the claim that celibacy is a requirement in scripture for leadership.

Preference, not a requirement. What is a requirement is a call or vocation to the priesthood, which does not usually include a call to marriage. In any case, the Church prefers to ordain as pastors those who have accepted the gift of celibacy.

 

[guanophore]

What the catholic church is forbidding are married men in the places of “higher authorities” i.e. bishops and priests. It is there that decisions for the entire church are made and married men for the most part do not have any authority there since they have been essentially locked out becasue they are married.

This is a misunderstanding, justasking. What you need to realize is that, if a person is called to that leadership,then they will have a call of celibacy. the church has plenty of "higher authorities that are married. There are teachers, theologians, and workers at every level that are not celibate, vowed, or consecrated priests. I think you misunderstand the nature of the priesthood. I am also confused as to why this is such an issue for you. Did you want to become a Catholic priest, and you were not allowed, because you were married? Why does it bother you so much?

 

[guanophore]

Would you agree that this goes against the scripture?

No, none of the consecrated orders go against scripture. For heavens sake! The Church created the scripture!!! How can you consider such a thing?!!??

There are more consecrated orders than you can count or imagine. Most of them include celibacy. Some do not ordain priests, but only monks, or nuns. It is from these monastic or consecrated communities that the Church prefers to take priests.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2754387]This is a misunderstanding, justasking. What you need to realize is that, if a person is called to that leadership,then they will have a call of celibacy.

Where do you get this idea? It’s not scripture. Is it not true also that the early church after the apostles did have married bishops etc ?

the church has plenty of "higher authorities that are married. There are teachers, theologians, and workers at every level that are not celibate, vowed, or consecrated priests. I think you misunderstand the nature of the priesthood.

Paul is not talking about these kinds of offices but about bishops being married.

I am also confused as to why this is such an issue for you. Did you want to become a Catholic priest, and you were not allowed, because you were married? Why does it bother you so much?

This topic is a good forumn to discuss what the scriptures and what the catholic church teaches. The catholic church makes claims that their teachings are grounded in the scriptures but when we study them in light of what the catholic church teaches we see something different. I also suspect that most catholics have not studied deeply what their church teaches nor what the scriptures teach on these matters.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2754435]No, none of the consecrated orders go against scripture. For heavens sake! The Church created the scripture!!! How can you consider such a thing?!!??

The church did not “create” scripture. God is the source not the church.

There are more consecrated orders than you can count or imagine. Most of them include celibacy. Some do not ordain priests, but only monks, or nuns. It is from these monastic or consecrated communities that the Church prefers to take priests.

It is clear from I Timothy 3 that married men with families were the best canidates for leadership and yet the catholic church has disqualified married from position of bishop because they are married.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Where do you get this idea? It’s not scripture. Is it not true also that the early church after the apostles did have married bishops etc ?

Paul is not talking about these kinds of offices but about bishops being married.

This topic is a good forumn to discuss what the scriptures and what the catholic church teaches. The catholic church makes claims that their teachings are grounded in the scriptures but when we study them in light of what the catholic church teaches we see something different. I also suspect that most catholics have not studied deeply what their church teaches nor what the scriptures teach on these matters.

Unfortunately, many Catholics do not study scripture as much as they should, but that is part of the secularization of our culture that affects Protestants as well.

Also, the Church did not have a clearly defined Bible until several centuries after Christ. Obviously, they would not have agreed on a Bible that did not support their teachings The Bible, therefore, rose out of Tradition, having been passed down for a number of generations before becoming the collection we now have on our bookshelves.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

This topic is a good forumn to discuss what the scriptures and what the catholic church teaches. The catholic church makes claims that their teachings are grounded in the scriptures but when we study them in light of what the catholic church teaches we see something different. I also suspect that most catholics have not studied deeply what their church teaches nor what the scriptures teach on these matters.

justasking4:

Well, I do not suspect but I know (and others here will agree) that you pick and choose what you want to believe REGARDLESS of historical proof (from Tradition as mentioned throughout patristic writings) or from Scripture.

St Paul talks about it. But that carries no weight with you.

You’re a man on a mission. Damn the evidence, full baloney ahead!

Most people I know DO study what our Church teaches. Their disagreements are for a variety of reasons but NEVER has any one of them been able to show us in the Bible that the Bible is the “Organizational Book of the Church founded by Christ until HIs Return”

The Church has NO PROBLEM with married clergy. Witness Anglican Use and some Eastern Churches’ traditions.

If the Orthodox were to come back to full communion with Rome (the ONLY remaining Patriarchal Church of the early centuries -gone are Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem courtesy of those moslems) the question of married priests would NOT BE AN ISSUE! Even in the Orthodox tradition, clergy above Priests can not be married.

It is a DISCIPLINE based upon the model of Christ, the statements of Christ concerning marriage and “following me” AND later writers (St Paul et alii) on the early customs of the Church.

Get over it, justasking4.

Find something a little more beneficial to do with your time (follow Isaiah’s advice, for example, and go feed the poor) than attack our Faith with scandalous allegations and intellectually shallow arguments.

Go, go in Peace

Robert

 

[justasking4]

justasking4:

Well, I do not suspect but I know (and others here will agree) that you pick and choose what you want to believe REGARDLESS of historical proof (from Tradition as mentioned throughout patristic writings) or from Scripture.

St Paul talks about it. But that carries no weight with you.

You’re a man on a mission. Damn the evidence, full baloney ahead!

Most people I know DO study what our Church teaches. Their disagreements are for a variety of reasons but NEVER has any one of them been able to show us in the Bible that the Bible is the “Organizational Book of the Church founded by Christ until HIs Return”

The Church has NO PROBLEM with married clergy. Witness Anglican Use and some Eastern Churches’ traditions.

If the Orthodox were to come back to full communion with Rome (the ONLY remaining Patriarchal Church of the early centuries -gone are Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem courtesy of those moslems) the question of married priests would NOT BE AN ISSUE! Even in the Orthodox tradition, clergy above Priests can not be married.

It is a DISCIPLINE based upon the model of Christ, the statements of Christ concerning marriage and “following me” AND later writers (St Paul et alii) on the early customs of the Church.

Get over it, justasking4.

Find something a little more beneficial to do with your time (follow Isaiah’s advice, for example, and go feed the poor) than attack our Faith with scandalous allegations and intellectually shallow arguments.

Go, go in Peace

Robert

Hope you feel better now that you have ranted…
Now give me some counter arguments against my position.

 

[justasking4]

Unfortunately, many Catholics do not study scripture as much as they should, but that is part of the secularization of our culture that affects Protestants as well.

Also, the Church did not have a clearly defined Bible until several centuries after Christ. Obviously, they would not have agreed on a Bible that did not support their teachings The Bible, therefore, rose out of Tradition, having been passed down for a number of generations before becoming the collection we now have on our bookshelves.

i agree with a lot you say here. However, we do now have the entire Bible to work with and we can easily compare doctrines and practices with it.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

i agree with a lot you say here. However, we do now have the entire Bible to work with and we can easily compare doctrines and practices with it.

What do you mean, “the entire Bible”? Are you counting deuterocanonicals?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

i agree with a lot you say here. However, we do now have the entire Bible to work with and we can easily compare doctrines and practices with it.

Except Catholics also have Sacred Tradition in addition to the Sacred Scriptures, and (just guessing) you probably won’t accept anything (else) from our Sacred Tradition other than those traditions you already have.

 

[justasking4]

What do you mean, “the entire Bible”? Are you counting deuterocanonicals?

No. I suspect you would. Correct?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

No. I suspect you would. Correct?

WOW! AMAZING! YOU MUST BE PSYCHIC!

Remind me which ones you don’t count again

And why, as well, if you please…

 

[justasking4]

Except Catholics also have Sacred Tradition in addition to the Sacred Scriptures, and (just guessing) you probably won’t accept anything (else) from our Sacred Tradition other than those traditions you already have.

I’m trying to understand exactly what Sacred Tradition is. What are examples of it and who started it? Is there a list of it somewhere that i can see all of it to the present time?

 

[justasking4]

WOW! AMAZING! YOU MUST BE PSYCHIC!

Remind me which ones you don’t count again

And why, as well, if you please…

There are major problems with the extra books in the catholic bible. For example none claim to be written by a prophet and the Jews rejected them as being Scripture. Other reasons could be given.