Ah. Didache? Actually, when adults are baptized, they are encouraged to fast, health permitting. When I was confirmed, I fasted from Good Friday evening until the Mass of the Easter Vigil on Saturday night. But that would be a discipline, not a doctrine. So you can scratch that off your list.
Not necessary. I am saying the ECF does not support the list. It was someone else who said they did.
I don’t agree with the assertion that all the leadership has to be celibate. The priesthood is a particular calling in the church, and some of the most faithful priests are not very good leaders. They are to act in persona Christi, and administer sacraments and the Gospel message to the faithful. That does not necessarily mean they are “leaders”. They are to ensure the preservation and promulgation of right doctrine. In fact, most parishes have leadership composed of Pastoral Councils that are made up of married people,and in some parishes, virtually all the ministries are headed by married lay people. It is erroneous to assert that celibacy is required for leadership, and equally erroneous to equate priesthood with all (or even most) leadership. It is a straw man.
I see what you are saying but any anti-Catholic would be thinking of Preists, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope. That club is almost celibate. Bishops MUST be celibate.
I’ll take that as a no.
Anyone else starting to feel that Old Scholar is stepping us through a logic tree with these successive one liner binary yes/no questions as if leading us down the path to some preconceived destination or pre-targeted ambush?
). The outcome in the example here is that one is “converted” in some form by being trapped by the logic or forced by conflict of convention to become uncharitable - which bucks social convention (and not an option in a Christian context or forum).
or 3) Convert him 
or 4) one other one.
Let me see if I can refresh your memory any.
Is there a difference between “rejection” and labelling them “traditions of men”?
Limbo was never a doctrine, but a theory. The doctrine of salvation has not changed. The Church’s understanding of who belongs to the Church has developed over time. Perhaps you don’t understand the difference?
There are a lot more early Fathers than the ones on your list. Why the limitation?
James, you are exactly correct. Old Scholar posits what appears to be a sincere question (Why don’t Catholics accept Sola Scriptura). The question was answered. We didn’t demand that he accept the answer. We answered it as a matter of explanation. He then turned the answers into an opportunity to impugn the entire Church. After he refused to answer some simple questions in return, you could see that he had a sinister agenda uninterested in both the truth (answer to the question) and Truth.Anyone else starting to feel that Old Scholar is stepping us through a logic tree with these successive one liner binary yes/no questions as if leading us down the path to some preconceived destination or pre-targeted ambush?
I am getting the distinct impression that we are being used as guinea pigs to proof and refine a strawman recruitment script that looks very much like it was drafted by an Amway or Jehovah’s Witness recruiter than it does by a person who wants to learn the truth. Given OS’'s demonstrated proclivity for copying and pasting questions and rhetoric from anti-Catholic website I quite imagine he may also be in possession of their recruitment scripts and processes too.
Normally a Catholic would have no problem pulverizing this sort of tacit with objective statements of fact. But some of these mechanisms are nothing but pure logic traps built on a hiearchy of paradoxes and disengenuious questions with cleverly nuanced semantics that give the illusion of a shadow of “truth”. Some are quite ingenuous actually.
An Amway styled logic script empowers a salesman to gain a potential recruit by giving the illusion he has the free choice to deviate from the script now and then. So there are pre-provided “negation” paths built into the argument taxonomy to give the poor trapped prospect the illusion of a choice. But it always leads back to a predetermined outcome - entrapment as a recruit of some “compromised kind”. That is, these sort of scripts split the end state objective into a tiered set of wins (ranging from partial victories to full victories but rarely a defeat since they usually disengage if aggressively forced off their script). This is done by providing multiple logic paths through alternative sets of pre-conceived questions that lead one to become a “retail customer” (a person who will buy the peace) or a “new downline marketer” (‘you’re management material!’
But in the manner of script that I think OS is using here he won’t accept “no/negation” to any question and takes any utterance at all as an affirmation of an audience/potential-recruit and as a sequencing-event to claim it as “affirmative” agreement. So he just takes any reply as a sequence to bulldoze to the next pre-scripted question. In a few more steps he will assert that he “proved” that Catholics are non-biblical or outright heretics or some other such nonsense. If it blows up he copies and pastes all the uncharitable replies to use as anti-catholic propaganda for some other forum.
This is one of those cases where Catholics have 4 choice: 1) Don’t play along and disengage or 2) keep him engaged for as long as possible out of harms way to prevent him from infecting somone less able to able to see through the tactic
So I am getting this sinking feeling and noticing it getting progressively warmer here as we are led to descend ever deeper through the rhetoric and ignored counter-comments toward the objective he wishes to progress us to.
I don’t expect conversion is a viable option and most of us don’t have the time to engage him and we can’t risk remaining silent without inviting an escalation of the absurd statements that might lead others astray. So it may be time to bring in option 4 - the excorcists or call on St. Michael.
James
Yes…Let me see if I can refresh your memory any.
Is there a difference between “rejection” and labelling them “traditions of men”?
So we agree then that a married catholic man that wants to be a priest for example cannot be a priest?
What about eating meat on any Fridays used to be a sin but its not now? Would this qualify as a doctrine-practice that has changed?
Again, there are exceptions. There are currently married Catholic priests and married men in formation for the priesthood.
They were located in different cities. They are still members of the One Body, and the One Faith. Universal. Members one of another, all in union with their bishops, and the bishops in union with one another.
Are you saying that if there is a married catholic man in your parish he could ask to become a priest and he could?
And if he could not, what then?