Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

W Putnam,

I like your last name; it's a strong name. From what country did your ancestors come?


Putnam said, 'Acts is indeed, a record of the things sthat have occurred before it was
written. Where was the "paper pope" before it was written?

Christians did not need a Bible/manuscripts because they had the real thing; the apostles and St. Luke, the Gentile.


How do you know that, Ray? I mean, really know that? There are thousands
of preachers, all claiming to have found the truth in scriptures, yet all
teaching and preaching a different gospel.

Ray is saying, 'As I said before we have a unity around the cardinal truths of Scripture.

Or is the Holy Spirit the third person in the Trinity who is a "spirit of
confusion"?

Ray is saying, Certainly there is no spirit of confusion coming from the Triune God. Sometimes error comes from clergy who have not had the privilege of studying years in a seminary. They, at times, only have a couple of years Bible college and then the church licenses them to preach.

Then how do the heresies come about, Bob, if by what you read from John
is a guarantee that the holy Spirit whispers in the ears of your guys the
absolute truth without a constant and continuous cohesion within their group
(the apostles) that they maintain the truth they claim?

Ray-The same way that in the 1950's declared that Mary did not die but ascended like our Lord into Heaven. That pope had no basis of saying that utter than his alleged authority. Error is error whether it comes from a 'pipe dream' or from the Bible.

The apostle John, an eyewitness to Jesus Christ Himself, is one thing, but for
Ray Berrian (as well as myself) who may think they know the truth,

Ray is saying, Was Jesus lying when He made His statement in John 14:26?

Putnam said, ' . . . suggest the magisterium of the Catholic Church,

Ray is saying, 'The magisterium has no spiritual right to publish their add-on theology any more than Catholics and Protestants accept the Book of Mormon as being authorative over us or the Church of the Latter Day Saints/Mormons.

' . . . she being the only church to trace her history back to Christ Himself.

Ray is saying, via Dr. Paul Enns, 'Non-Catholics would establish the beginning of the R.C. church in A.D. 590 with Gregory I "who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started that church on a new course.' "The Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 529. This is when the Vatican came into its strength and power.

Ray is saying, 'This is a flagrant error from the Roman Catholic Church. Study the Greek word Peter and the word, 'this rock' and you will see they are different words. Christ is the Rock of the Christian faith not Peter. Is Almighty God so vulnerable and weak that He needs help in getting His work and ministry completed until the end of the age? Christ is the Rock. Please, look up: Psalm 61:2; 62:2; 78:35;*92:15;*94:22-23;*95:1;Matt. 16:18;I Cor. 3:11;I Peter 2:4; I Peter 5:1 and so on] When you find time send me all of the Scripture references that say that Peter was Rock of our faith. I'll send you $500.00 for each reference you can find.

The bible alone is obviously not a good source by the witness of the results: total confusion of what the Bible teaches!

Ray is saying, 'Offer the above statement to the Lord when you stand before Him. I'm not sure He will say, 'Appreciate it.'

Putnam said, ' . . . interpretations is a tragedy before us...

Ray is saying, Certainly our varying interpretations as well as Catholic add-on theology is of absolutly no help to the Lord in extending His Kingdom.

Ray is saying, 'Our churches build their
congregations/denominations around different portions of
the Word of God. The Church of the Nazarene builds their
churches around the holiness of God and the need of
sanctification in the lives of its members. The Baptist's build
their beliefs around the sovereignty of God and of the
security we can have knowing that we have everlasting life.
The Assembly of God people build their faith around the
emphasis on the Holy Spirit or the gifts of the Spirit.


Why not find that church who has build herself around ALL of the things you
have mentioned and has done this from the time of Pentecost?

Nice going, Ray, but you have also glossed-over the very disunity, such
diverse churches present. In my town, there are four churches on evey
corner of a given city block! One teaches that baptism saves (is a part of the
salvation process that is necessary) while another has not baptized in years!
One teaches the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and another does
not. Where is the unity, Ray? There is a multitude of "shephards" each
teaching a different gospel message, where Christ said there will be "one
flock and one shephard."

Ray-None of these Churches including the Catholic denies the Divinity of Christ or denies the atonement. There will never be complete unity because we are fallible, human beings. Jesus does, however, desire the unity that you are speaking about. [John 17:11]


But some churches do not believe in the Trinity!

Ray-If they do not believe in the Trinity and that Christ is Divine then they are a cult; and we should separate ourselves from them, in my opinion.

And all of those you mentioned do not believe in the real presence of Our
Lord in the Eucharist either!

Ray-But, they all love Jesus; isn't that the more important reality?

Yet that was universally believed for the first 1500 years of church history!

Ray-Possibly. It is a most difficult subject for sure.

And none of the churches you mention forbid artificial birth control, whereas
in 1930, they stood tall, shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church as
condemning it as a perverse evil!

Ray-Only in the Roman Church, as far as I know. . . Where in the Bible does it say that one or the other must not use birth control?

Thank God there are indeed, many things we hold in common belief! But the
"devil is in the details" when we get down to the nitty gritty, doesn't it?

Ray-For some people, apparently it is a large pill to swallow.

I am still looking for that "paper pope" you spoke about.

Ray-I mean that our Bible is our paper pope. Only the Word of God is our authority. If it is not found in the Bible, in the words of the Italian, 'fooget abou it.' My inlaws are all Italians so I get away with this statement. And Catholic too. They keep me straight.

 

Did you both to check the link that I provided.

Your little greek word game is addressed there.

I noticed that you skipped right past my reference to historical Christianity.

Perhaps you could take a little time and see when your "rock/pebble" interpretation was first expressed.

You can save yourself a lot of time by skipping the first 1500 years of historical Christian records.

 

Ray listed the Lutheran Church which affirms the Real Presence, all the ecumenical creeds, and all the articles of apostolic doctrine.

Our churches dissent in no article of faith from the Church Catholic. Augsburg Confession.

 

I said, 'Each of these denominations believe in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ,
Salvation, Sanctification, Original Sin, the Miracles of Christ, the Second
Coming of Christ, Heaven and Hell, and so on. All major doctrines we know
to be in the Bible among the Nazarenes, Baptists, Pentecostals,
Presbyterians, Lutherans and other denominations. I am sure that all
Catholics believe in the doctrines stated above.

I don't see anything in my above statement that even mentioned the sacrament of Communion or the 'real Presence of Christ in the wafer.' I personally, don't believe that the exact belief as to the Eucharist is necessary in order to enter Heaven. It is an imporant subject to deal with, however.

Am I right to think that Lutherans preceive that His spiritual Presence is in the sacrament, but not the actual blood and Body of our Lord in the elements? I believe that Catholics think that the bread and wine actually become the literal Body and Blood of our Lord. Correct me if I am incorrect.

 

Ray replied:

England, I understand…

I last said (given in italics):

'Acts is indeed, a record of the things sthat have occurred before it was
written. Where was the "paper pope" before it was written?

Sir, go beyond the apostolic era, at the death of St. John, and not that we did not yet have a New Testament in one form, bound together as one book. They were written, but still scattered.

It was not until about the 3rd century that the New Testament was finally brought together and canonized and to be included with the Old Testament as the Written Word of God. And even then, it was centuries later that such a bible was even available to common people, because:

1. They were way too expensive, still being hand-transcribed.

2. THEY COULD NOT READ! (The illiteracy rate was quite high, even down to the times when the printing press was invented.

3. And even when the printing press was invented, the bible remained a very expensive thing to possess, let alone read.


I last said:


How do you know that, Ray? I mean, really know that? There are thousands
of preachers, all claiming to have found the truth in scriptures, yet all
teaching and preaching a different gospel.

As demonstrated by thousands of different and diverse Christian denominations, all claiming they have the full truth! You call that UNITY? You can't be serious, Ray!

Or is the Holy Spirit the third person in the Trinity who is a "spirit of
confusion"?

That is about a non-reply as I have ever seen, Bob, sorry. We have thousands of Christian communities, each having a pastor that was educated by some Protestant seminary, with years of bible study and reflection, and they still cannot find the one true church! Did you say, "sometimes error"? You betcha, but I would extend that to be a continuous error that is perpetuated year after year after year!

Then how do the heresies come about, Bob, if by what you read from John
is a guarantee that the holy Spirit whispers in the ears of your guys the
absolute truth without a constant and continuous cohesion within their group
(the apostles) that they maintain the truth they claim?

First of all, the Church has never claimed that Mary never died. The Church teaches that she was assumed bodily into heaven, but we do not know if she was dead or alive when this happened. And by the way, the Assumption of Mary has always been believed, including the testimony of the early fathers, long before the dogma of the Assumption was ever defined! And likewise for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It likewise was always believed, as we see in the history of the church and her artifacts in art and extant writings.

Please be advised that the pope does not get up some morning and suddenly decide to define a dogma. Such an act often takes hundreds of years of prayer and contemplation, plus a consensus of the faithful, and the Assumption and The Immaculate Conception dogmas are perfect examples of this.

The apostle John, an eyewitness to Jesus Christ Himself, is one thing, but for
Ray Berrian (as well as myself) who may think they know the truth,

Of course not! Please note that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, Ray, the "charter clergy" of His church who must be protected from error in those very early times, including the guidance that Peter, being the one to "Feed (His) sheep," their human leader as He ascends to the Father in heaven. Therefore, it is most appropriate for the holy Spirit to do exactly as Christ says the 3rd person of the holy Trinity will do.

' . . . suggest the magisterium of the Catholic Church,

Putnam is saying, the magisterium is the perfect method of preserving the gospel and the theology of Jesus Christ per Matthew 16:18-19, which only the Catholic Church can claim lineage, whereas the Mormon's out of whole cloth.

The Mormon Church is about as authoritative as my left ear! Why? They make the claims of a cult, beginning in Illinois, outside mainstream of Protestantism, itself a heresy, with absolutely no way of tracing a link to the original church founded by Christ!

And lookie here, I come round-robbin…

' . . . she being the only church to trace her history back to Christ Himself.

You can't be serious, ray! Tell me, Ray, what church did the following early church fathers belong to?

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm

Please note the dates of when these papers were written, Ray. This is documented history of the Catholic Church, Ray, that goes almost to the edge of the end of the apostolic age!

Ray, this is absolute proof that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, else please show me the documentation of any non-Catholic community, be it the Mormons, Baptists, whatever. Anwer: There are none! Their history ends at a schism away from the Catholic Church, pure and simple!

What is a "flagrant error"? Her history back to ancient times? I have just destroyed that notion with my link above!

Keep your $500.00 and please note your obvious error of "mixing metaphors." Christ is a Rock, Peter is a Rock, and I can even call you a rock if I think you are strong, steadfast, unchanging, all those attributes we give to a rock that is seen to be unchanging in it's constituent matter. Because Christ is called a rock does not preclude Christ from calling Peter a rock, Ray.

The bible alone is obviously not a good source by the witness of the results: total confusion of what the Bible teaches!

When I stand before Him, Ray, I will be on my knees in praise of Him, God Almighty!


[Putnam said, ' . . . interpretations is a tragedy before us...

NOTE: Thanks for truncating what I said!

Putnam says in reply, AMEN TO THAT! Especially when these "varying interpretations" has the bread and wine in communion simply symbolic of Christ's body and blood, whereas we Catholics (and high-church Anglicans/Lutherans) believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ (without getting into the details of the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation of the Lutherans.)

You make my case, Ray! Private interpretations, even scripture warns us of, is what got Protestantism in trouble! And saying that, please note that MY interpretations are not solely my own, having bounced them off the teachings of holy Church.

And I previously replied to the above with:

Why not find that church who has build herself around ALL of the things you
have mentioned and has done this from the time of Pentecost?

Nice going, Ray, but you have also glossed-over the very disunity, such
diverse churches present. In my town, there are four churches on every
corner of a given city block! One teaches that baptism saves (is a part of the
salvation process that is necessary) while another has not baptized in years!
One teaches the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and another does
not. Where is the unity, Ray? There is a multitude of "shepherds" each
teaching a different gospel message, where Christ said there will be "one
flock and one shepherd."

Then Ray, are you now saying that it is perfectly acceptable that Christian communities can disagree on, say, the doctrine of the Eucharist, and it is perfectly OK so long as we all agree on the "Divinity of Christ"? Excuse me but where do you see that an obvious error can exist? Either the Eucharist is Christ Himself as the Catholic Church teaches or it is not. So which is it? One position must be in error, as the belief in the Eucharist cannot support two diametrically opposing beliefs!

Now, saying that, please don't conclude that those who are innocently in error are doomed to hell or any such thing, but truth is the truth! Error is error! And to know the truth is to be on the "greased slide" to heaven in my humble opinion, and I firmly believe that the Catholic Church is that "greased slide" that leads to heaven, even while God is still the ultimate judge, finding both Catholics and Protestants enjoying the beatific Vision of Almighty God!

Only God knows the heart…

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

But some churches do not believe in the Trinity!

I agree with you here, but I will come into contact with in witnessing my faith! And as you well know, I have been doing that very thing here in this conference!

But please, let them be judged by God, who knows their hearts - we do not!

And all of those you mentioned do not believe in the real presence of Our
Lord in the Eucharist either!

What is more important is, they love Jesus and partake of Him in His body and blood! I will not deny those who love Jesus a salvation they may deserve, but oh how much more glorious is it when they also know Him in the Eucharist!

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." (John 6:53)

Those are mighty awesome words, in obvious hyperbola, how important the Eucharist is in the divine plan of Christ's new covenant, Ray!

Yet that was universally believed for the first 1500 years of church history!

It was for me too! My being in denial of the truth of what the Church has always taught, and as reflected in the writings of the early fathers. A former Anglican clergyman, a convert to Catholicism who later became a cardinal, once said:

"To be deep into church history is to cease to be Protestant."

John Henry Cardinal Neumann

And none of the churches you mention forbid artificial birth control, whereas
in 1930, they stood tall, shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church as
condemning it as a perverse evil!

It is implied, not explicit as you might want, Ray, but here are scriptural references for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

And…

http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Thank God there are indeed, many things we hold in common belief! But the
"devil is in the details" when we get down to the nitty gritty, doesn't it?

I am still looking for that "paper pope" you spoke about.

I gotcha over a barrel, Ray!

Before the New Testament was written, (or even before it was even disseminated as one document) the only authority around was the oral word of God as preached from the mouths of the clergy of the Church! That means that Church had a pope, starting with Peter and then a long list of them:

THE SUCCESSION OF POPES

St. Peter (?- 67) THE APOSTLE Benedict V (964-966)

St. Linus (67-76) John XIII (965-972)

St. Anacletus (76-88) Benedict VI (973-974)

St. Clement (88-97) Benedict VII (974-983)

St. Evaristus (97-105) John XIV (983-984)

St. Alexander I (105-115) John XV (985-996)

St. Sixtus I (115-125) Gregory V (996-999)

St. Telesphorus (125-136) Sylvester II (999-1003)

St. Hyginus (136-140) John XVII (1003-1003)

St. Pius I (140-155) John XVIII (1004-1009)

St. Anicetus (155-166) Sergois IV (1009-1012)

St. Soter (166-175) Benedict VIII (1012-1024)

St. Eleutherius (175-189) John XIX (1024-1032)

St. Victor I (189-199) Benedict IX (1032-1044)

St. Zephyrinus (199-217) Sylvester III (1045-1045)

St. Callistus (217-222) Benedict IX (1045-1045)

St. Urban (222-230) Gregory (1045-1046)

St. Pontain (230-235) Clement II (1046-1047)

St. Anterus (235-236) Benedict IX (1047-1048)

St. Fabian (236-250) Damasus II (1048-1048)

St. Cornelius (251-253) St. Leo IX (1049-1054)

St. Lucius I (253-254) Victor II (1055-1057)

St. Stephen I (254-257) Stephen IX(X)(1057-1058)

St. Sixtus II (257-258) Nicholas II (1059-1061)

St. Dionysius (259-268) Alexander II (1061-1073)

St. Felix (269-274) St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)

St. Eutychian (275-283) Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)

St. Caius (283-296) Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)

St. Marcellinus (296-304) Paschal II (1099-1118)

St. Marcellus I (308-309) Gelasius II (1118-1119)

St. Eusebius (309?-310?) Callistus II (1119-1124)

St. Meltiades (311-314) Honorius II (1124-1130)

St. Sylvester I (314-335) Innocent II (1130-1143)

St. Marcus (336-336) Celestine II (1143-1144)

St. Julius I (337-352) Lucius II (1144-1145)

Liberius (352-366) Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)

St. Damasus I (366-384) Anastasius IV (1153-1154)

St. Siricius (384-399) Adrian IV (1154-1159)

St. Anastasius I (399-401) Alexander III (1159-1181)

St. Innocent I (401-417) Lucius III (1181-1185)

St. Zozimus (417-418) Urban III (1185-1187)

St. Boniface I (418-422) Gregory VIII (1187-1187)

St. Celestine I (422-432) Clement III (1187-1191)

St. Sixtus III (432-440) Celestine III (1191-1198)

St. Leo I (440-461) Innocent III (1198-1216)

St. Hilary (461_468) Honorius III (1216-1227)

St. Simplocius (468-483) Gregory IX (1227-1241)

St. Felix III (II)(483-492) Celestine IV (1241-1241)

St. Gelasius I (492-496) Innocent IV (1243-1254)

St. Anastasius II (496-498) Alexander IV (1254-1261)

St. Symmachus (498-514) Urban IV (1261-1264)

St. Hormisdas (514-523) Clement IV (1265-1268)

St. John I (523-526) Bl. Gregory X (1271-1276)

St. Felix IV (III)(526-530) Bl. Innocent V (1276-1276)

Boniface II (530-532) Adrian V (1276-1276)

John II (533-535) John XXI (1276-1277)

St. Agapitus I (535-536) Nicholas III (1277-1280)

St. Silverius (536-537) Martin IV (1281-1285)

Vigilius (537-555) Honorius IV (1285-1287)

Pelagius (556-561) Nicholas IV (1288-1292)

John III (561-574) St. Celestine V (1294-1294)

Benedict I (575-579) Boniface VIII (1294-1303)

Pelagius II (579-590) Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)

St. Gregory (590-604) Clement V (1305-1314)

Sabinianus (604-606) John XXII (1316-1334)

Boniface III (607-607) Benedict XII (1334-1342)

St. Boniface IV (608-615) Clement VI (1342-1352)

St. Deusdedit(Adeodatus I) Innocent VI (1352-1362)

(615-618) * Bl. Urban V (1392-1370)

Boniface V (619-625) Gregory XI (1370-1378)

Honorius I (625-638) Urban VI (1378-1389)

Severinus (640-640) Boniface IX (1389-1404)

John IV (640-642) Innocent VII (1404-1406)

Theodore I (642-649) Gregory XII (1406-1415)

St. Martin I (649-655) Martin V (1417-1431)

St. Eugene I (654-657) Eugene IV (1431-1447)

St. Vitalian (657-672) Nicholas V (1447-1455)

Adeodatus II (672-676 Callestus III (1455-1458)

Donus (676-768) Pius II (1458-1464)

St. Agatho (678-681) Paul II (1464-1471)

St. Leo II (682-683) Sixtus IV (1471-1484)

St. Benedict II (684-685) Innocent VIII (1484-1492)

John V (685-686) Alexander VI (1492-1503)

Conon (686-687) Pius III (1503-1503)

St. Sergius I (687-701) Julius II (1503-1513)

John VI (701-705) Leo X (1513-1521)

John II (705-707) Adrian VI (1522-1523)

Sisinnius (708-708) Clement VII (1523-1534)

Constantine (708-715) Paul III (1534-1549)

St. Gregory II (715-731) Julius III (1550-1555)

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

St. Gregory III (731-741) Marcellus II (1555-1555)

St. Zachary (741-752) Paul IV (1555-1559)

St. Stephen II (752-752) Pius IV (1559-1565)

Stephen II (III)(752-757) St. Pius V (1566-1572)

St. Paul I (757-767) Gregory XIII (1572-1585)

Stephen III(IV)(768-772) Sixtus V (1585-1590)

Adrian I (772-795) Urban VII (1590-1590)

St. Leo III (795-816) Gregory XIV (1590-1591)

Stephen IV(V)(816-817) Innocent IX (1591-1591)

St. Paschal I (817-824) Clement VIII (1592-1605)

Eugene II (824-827) Leo XI (1605-1605)

Valentine (827-827) Paul V (1605-1621)

Gregory IV (827-844) Gregory XV (1621-1623)

Sergius II (844-847) Urban VIII (1623-1644)

St. Leo IV (847-855) Innocent X (1644-1655)

Benedict III (855-858) Alexander VII (1655-1667)

St. Nicholas I (858-867) Clement IX (1667-1669)

Adrian II (867-872) Clement X (1670-1676)

John VIII (872-882) Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)

Marinus I (882-884) Alexander VIII (1689-1691)

St. Adrian III (884-885) Innocent XII (1691-1700)

Stephen V(VI)(885_891) Clement XI (1700-1721)

Formosus (891-896) Innocent XIII (1721-1724)

Boniface VI (896-896) Benedict XIII (1724-1730)

Stephen VI(VII)(896-897) Clement XII (1730-1740)

Romanus (897-897) Benedict XIV (1740-1758)

Theodore II (897-897) Clement XIII (1758-1769)

John IX (898-900) Clement XIV (1769-1774)

Benedict IV (900-903) Pius VI (1775-1799)

Leo V (903-903) Pius VII (1800-1823)

Sergius III (904-911) Leo XII (1823-1829)

Anastasius III (911-913) Pius VIII (1829-1830)

Landus (913-914) Gregory XVI (1831-1846)

John X (914-928) Pius IX (1846-1878)

Leo VI (928-928) Leo XIII (1878-1903)

Stephen VII(VIII)(928-931) St. Pius X (1903-1914)

John XI (931-935) Benedict XV (1914-1922)

Leo VII (936-939) Pius XI (1922-1939)

Stephen VIII(IX)(939-942) Pius XII (1939-1958)

Marinus II (942-946) John XXIII (1958-1963)

Agapitus II (946-955) Paul VI (1963-1978)

John XII (955-964) John Paul I (1978-1978)

Leo VIII (963-965) John Paul II (1978-present)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


... Jesus Christ says to Peter.........

... "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

... Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven;

... whatsoever you declare loosed on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

... Matthew, chapter 16 verse 19

 

Ray listed the Lutheran Church which affirms the Real Presence, all the ecumenical creeds, and all the articles of apostolic doctrine.

Our churches dissent in no article of faith from the Church Catholic. Augsburg Confession. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but in reality, as I understand it, their doctrine is slightly different. While we believe that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the actual body and blood of Christ (the "accidents" of bread and wine remain) which we call transubstantiation, the Lutherans believe that the bread and wine remain unchanged but that Christ is present within the bread and wine called consubstantiation.

I may not have that stated right, so all you good Lutherans, please correct me here!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Where does the Bible speak of this "Mighty Oak" that would come to be? This is a figment of your imagination, a result of the presuppostions that you believe because of the indoctrination of the Catholic Church.
The word, or name "Catholic" is of total inconsequence to me. It is of the nature of humanity to take a word, redefine it, or at least apply it in a way that it never should have been. Many churches have done this. For example:
Do you agree that the "Church of Christ" is the only church that is Christian, that is "of Christ?"
Do you believe that the "Apostolic Church" is the only church that is "of the Apostles," and none other?
Do you believe that only the Congregational Church has congregations?
So what if the Congregational Church uses the word "congregation." That is of no consequence to me. It doesn't conccern me at all.
So what if the RCC's use the word "Catholic." That is of no consequece to me. It doesn't matter to me at all. It is simply a word, not even used in the Bible, nor by the Apostles. So What!

What God has used down the centuries are holy men of God, such as William Carey, William Tyndale, Adoniram Judson, and other such non-Catholics to spread the gospel, not tyranny.

Quite right, and it never became universal. There is no such thing as a universal assembly. It defies the definition of the word.

The great commission is given to every believer, to every local church. It is God's will that every believer (as stated in the great commission) be baptized. Then, as the example is given in Acts 2:41,42, they should become a member of a local church. In Acts 1:8 the commission again is given to be witnesses throughout the world. It is for every believer to obey the Word of God. As they do local assemblies will be started in differen areas all over the world, just as Paul started local assemblies all over the known world of his time. He never established a denomination.

Since the word church comes from ekklesia which means assembly, it had to remain that way. There is no other church but a local assembly.

They had the same message because the gospel is the same. The Word of God, as it was being inscripturated was the same. The sign gifts such as prophecy were based on the Word of God and gave needed revelation until the Word of God was completed. When apostles were present the apostles themselves could see that the doctrine was the same. Jude refers to "contending for the faith." Quite obviously, by that time there was a "faith" a body of doctrine to contend for.

No! They were all independent churches.

The "Mighty Oak" is a figment of your imagination. Where is it spoken of in the Bible? Luther was correct. He nailed his 95 theses on the door exposing the Catholic Church for what it was, naming all the unbiblical heresies that it had come to believe. The one grave error that Luther made was that he was a reformer. He tried to reform the Church from within, without coming out of it. The Bible says:

2Cor.6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
--He should have made a clean break from the apostate church and come out from it all together.

As Luther would no doubt agree to: The only thing that was universal was universal apostacy.

You are wrong here. Paul did not discipline them at all. He advised them. As in 1Cor.5, an issue dealing with immorality of the worse kind, Paul did not have any part in the discipline. It was the church themselves that had to do the disciplining. Paul only advised.
If Clement of Rome disciplined the Corinthians he was quite out of order in doing so. It was none of his business. Each church is autonomous.

As stated, it was not of Clement's business. He was out of order, and will give account before God for such action. Advice is one thing; actual discipline is quite another. There is wisdom in a multitude of counsellors. BTW there is no "chair of Peter." It doesn't exist. It is either a man-made invention, or a figment of someone's imagination. You can't back that up with Scripture either.

Of course Jesus knew what He was doing. There was no Mighty Oak. Paul established churches, not "the Church." You must read the book of Acts for yourself.

Paul advised; Clement meddled in affairs that he had no business in.

Bishop is just another word for overseer. The pastor is the overseer. The pastor of the church at Corinth at that time was Apollos, whom Paul had left in charge. He was accoutable only to Christ. Christ is the head of the church (every church, i.e., local assembly--for there is no other kind).

First, there is no solid evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, let alone "Bishop."
Second, you can blame Clement all you want. From the evidence that you have presented he was in the wrong quite a bit of the time.
DHK

 

DHK replied, where I last said (in italics):

DHK, in those very early times, while Christ was among them and even when the church was not yet really established, there was only one local "assembly" of people, disciples, who were following Him, Christ.

They were the "acorn" from which, as the years go by and Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, would the mighty oak tree come to be! And yet they are still the same "assembly" which acquired the embellishment of the name "Catholic" somewhere around A.D. 100, that was to become even larger as the mission to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 finds success, that the "Mighty Oak" would come to be! And yes, being 2,000 years old, Holy Church had her scandals from the fallibility of her own clergy, even while the vast majority of them were good holy men and women who you seem to blithely ignore as irrelevant are so obviously present in literature and documentation.

The One holy Catholic and Apostolic "Assembly"!

DHK, it's not in the bible! And it is not my original comment but one I borrowed from one Joe Gallegos of papacy.zip fame, and one I have used simply because it demonstrates how it was the infant church grew, like an "acorn" it was, the "mighty oak" it become as the Church it is today!

What must I do to convince you that the Church did not commit me to some asylum ans somehow "forced fed" me into this belief; I found it all by my little lonesome self!

Figment of my imagination? Presuppositions? Remember, I came from a Protestant background, not being a "cradle Catholic" but one who came into the faith from much, study, reasoning and by all means, prayer.

Pardon me, DHK, but I don't believe that! Why? Because the very fact that you had to even say that tells me that the very name bothers you very much! Sorry…

If you are speaking of the denomination that is claiming the title of "Church of Christ," the answer is NO. But if you are speaking of the "Church of Christ" as actually established, then YES!

If it was established by Christ with the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," how can it be anything other then "of Christ"?

If by the "apostolic Church," you mean the original Church as founded by Christ, then it is indeed the "only church of the apostles" AND "none other!!!

You see, all of those "non other's" came to be long after the end of the apostolic era, and in fact, did not make the scene for the most part until after the 16th century, coincident with the so called "Protestant Reformation." Cool, huh?

What are "congregations"? If you mean this word like parishes, like my church is St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, and is called a parish, so in that sense, it is also a congregation. And so yes, I can say that my particular parish church is a congregation. And if other non-Catholic Churches have the same thing, which they certainly do, then yes again for them as well.

OK with me, but I still think the word "Catholic" causes you to rear up and take notice!

OK, if it bothers you so much, why don't we simply call it the One Holy Apostolic Assembly. Or perhaps you can call it another name… (No profanity now!)

I am not sure why you are name dropping here, but OK, what about them? As I recall, Tyndale's bible was so defective and such a poor English translation, complete with anti-Catholic notes in the margins, it is no wonder it did not find favor with the Catho… Oop's, sorry, I mean the Holy Apostolic Assembly.

DHK, I think all Christians acknowledge what Christ said in Matthew 16:18-19 is future tense (…Upon this rock I will (future tense) build my church…) and that indeed, her beginnings were at Pentecost. And indeed, the first church, the "acorn" I have been speaking of, was indeed local to Jerusalem. In other words, there was a time when THE CHURCH was merely a local church. After all, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?

And no, it was not quite "universal" yet, was it?

It didn't? Why do I see signs of her influence all over the world then? I see the signs of the presence of her missionaries in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, England (even while most of her property was stolen from her, including her churches such as Westminster Abby) long before the first Protestant missionary even put one foot before the other in missionary work!

Was it to stay that way, DHK, or was something dynamic to occur as the apostles (and their successors) were to "make disciples of all nations" in the command given to them by Christ in Matthew 28:19?

Who was Christ speaking to in Matthew 28:19, DHK? It was His apostles primarily. They are the ones who are given the charge of the mission at hand, not the lay, although certainly, the laity did eventually contribute. It was to His church He gave to mission to, not you or I unless we are successors in ordination, which neither of us are. But my bishop is! He is a successor! That requires a "laying on of hands," DHK!

While THE CHURCH certainly a quite local "assembly," it was not to remain that way, was it?

Playing a word game is not going to get it, DHK, if in the event we have a collection of such assemblies, why not the totality of this collection also called "Church"? How about "assembly of assemblies," DHK?

Here you are, telling me that name's mean nothing to me, yet you squirm over the issue of "ekklesia" as somehow, not allowed to refer to nothing more then the "little church in the wild wood" and nothing more!

Incredible!

We soon were to have local/regional "assemblies" formed at Corinth, Thesaloniki and elsewhere, all local in and of themselves but certainly to teach and preach the same doctrines and gospel message of Jesus Christ, right, sir?

Completed? Where was it at Pentecost, DHK? Methinks I asked that question before, not recalling your answer.

Yes, even before ink first touched papyrus in it inscripturation! Wonderful how the holy Spirit kept the early church from falling into error, even to the 3rd century where she finally canonized what is today the holy
Bible! Guess which "Assembly" did that, DHK.

And, in union with the first original "local assembly" in Jerusalem that formed at Pentecost, they are still THE CHURCH?

The last time I looked, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was still "in union with Rome" and under the obedience of a guy in charge in Vatican City! That tells me he is in charge of a whole bunch of "local churches" or a CHURCH of local churches. Independent of ALL authority from Rome? Yea, that first happened with the Orthodox schism about AD 1000. Also later on with Martin Luther and King Henry VIIIth…

DHK, I am "audacious" enough to claim that this same beginnings, in consonance with the success of the commands of Matthew 28:19, that what was a "local assembly" in Jerusalem became the "Mighty Oak" we see growing throughout all of the first 1500 years of her growth, being the only church around (other then the unfortunate schism of the Orthodox Eastern Church) to the times of Luther in the 16th century!

I love the term! I think it describes the natural growth, with the influence of the holy Spirit quite nicely, thank you very much!

Are you now into rewriting scripture, DHK? My Catholic NAB says no such thing! Paul speak of what "apostate assembly" (my words) here, DHK? Verse 14 speaks of not being "yoked with unbelievers." And since Paul is speaking to the Corinthians here, it is obviously a "pagan assembly" (my words again) of some sort, the Corinthian Christians may be tempted to back slide into once again. And verse 17 speaks, "…come forth from them and be separate." (Catholic NAB) Who are the "them," DHK? Nothing more then the "unbelievers" Paul speaks of in verse 14, in Corinth, where these "unbelievers" are.

It always amazes me to see Fundamentalists attempt to pin some pagan identity the apostles are telling the people about upon the Church in Rome, when indeed, that church there, in that time period, was in it's infancy, even being persecuted to the lion in the Roman circus!

Incredible!

And guess what, DHK, the name "Catholic" (which means "universal") did indeed, become an appropriate name, and indeed, the Catholic Church is "universal"! Today she is! At her beginnings, she was not, still in the form of the "acorn" of Christ's establishment and at Pentecost.

As Luther would no doubt agree to: The only thing that was universal was universal apostacy.

Opinion noted, as well as a very weak rebuttal of a truth that cannot be refuted. Nice try, DHK, but better men then you have tried and failed.

You don't know how hard it was for me to defend my former Fundamentalist stance, in my youth, only to be forced back to the reality of the truth of history. And the history of the church can do only one thing but point to the true Church of Jesus Christ, the only one around for the first 1500 years of church history (save for the Orthodox schism in the 10th century.)


(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

If they were "autonomous" as you say, why does Paul still discipline them? He was their "founder" in those regions, you know, all teaching the same doctrines and the gospel of Jesus Christ, but unfortunately, later on, at the end of the apostolic era, we find one Clement of Rome disciplining the Corinthians once again.

You are playing with words again, DHK. Of course it was the clergy of the Corinthian church that applied the corrections (so far as we know, as the results of Paul's letters are not recorded.)

Do you know what is so incredible about that statement? I understand that the surviving documents of Clement' letter was in the archives of the Eastern Church, where it was read with reverence to the faithful! Not bad for Clement to be doing something that was "none of his business," don't you think? I also understand that his letter was greeted with joy and great enthusiasm in the East! Imagine that?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Eastern Church respected and came to the Bishop of Rome as the final arbitrator in disputes and doctrinal matters…until the unfortunate schism in the 10th century or thereabouts, that they now deny such authority from the Roman bishop.

What business was it of Clement anyway? Corinth was a far away regional church who had her own bishops to discipline them so why is Clement writing to them in a similar admonishment as Paul did? Because the bishops of the region came to Clement for direction and advise! Why? Because Clement was the 3rd successor to "the Chair of Peter"! He was the Bishop of Rome! (Read his "Letter to the Corinthians" sometime and get the picture, DHK.) Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims that they were always autonomous from the Bishop of Rome, but this letter put to route, that notion completely!

The "Chair of Peter" is a figure of speech, denoting the authority of the pope of Rome, being the successor of Peter, the first pope. And if you want to quibble over the words "advise" and "discipline" go right ahead. And if you read Clement's letter (In think I posted a lint to it) you will see the conciliatory tone taken. The word "discipline" can be taken in different ways, but it basically means to "teach" or to "correct." And I think both Paul and Clement, the 3rd successor to Peter as pope, did exactly that!

You get the idea Jesus, from His throne in heaven, knew what He was doing when He inspired Saul to stop "persecuting me" to be that very spear-head of what evangelization was all about and how it was to be done! I also note the successes in other parts of the world, Japan, South America, Africa, of the successors of Paul and the other apostles who went on in this grand mission.

And slowly, but steadily, THE CHURCH grew, from the "acorn" of it's beginning, to a sapling in it's youth, to the mighty oak it has become!p/I]

I'm surprised to hear you say this, DHK, as it tells me you still do not understand who the ultimate founder of the church is, and of course it is Jesus Christ! To say that Paul established a church certainly does not mean that Paul established the "assembly of assemblies" we are talking about! And again, what Christ founded was tiny, just a few men to run (the apostles) yet with a rapidly gaining laity of the faithful, where thousands were gained in one day, I think scripture says?

I have read the book of Acts but I will never claim I know scripture as well as I should. But I do rely on the teachings of the Church concerning what happened in the events depicted in Acts and as we also read in the evidence of the interpretation of the early church fathers.

If he did not have authority over them, why did he keep writing to them? And likewise, why did a successor later one, Clement of Rome, write to the Corinthians again if he had no authority as you claim? Or are you going to claim that Clement was "meddling" in the affairs of the Corinthians where he had no business doing so?

(sigh!) Did you read the link that gave Clement's letter? Note also what I have already said about Clement's letter and how it was apparently received in the East.

Also, I am sure that excommunication in those times in Corinth involved a local bishop (overseer appointed by Paul, no doubt) that had this local authority to do as you say, just like my local bishop has authority here in his own diocese.

You downplay the word "overseer"? And of course my Bishop (overseer) is accountable to Christ as well! We all are! But he is also accountable to the Bishop of Rome, into which the "keys of the kingdom" reside in the authority originally given to Peter. If Paul left Apollos in charge, is not them Apollos beholden to Paul in the exercise of his office? Is not also Timothey, whom Paul instructed, beholden to Paul in the same way?

Oh, give me a break, DHK!

Or shall I also blame Clement, the 3rd successor to Peter, the pope, Bishop of Rome at the time, for the schism that ultimately occurred in Corinth and the rest of the Eastern church region long after he was dead and buried? Is he to blame for this as he also originated a Letter to the Corinthians as well, such as Paul earlier did?

I blame clement for nothing! I praise him for his wonderful letter that seems to have been received with love and affection by the Corinthians! And from the evidence of what surrounded Clement, he was quite right in what he wrote, else we would see the protests and the resistance the letter would have produced. We see none of this at all!

As for the Peter being in Rome, I will simply present the following links:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

And best of all, a comprehensive study on the issue by an old friend of mine, Phil Porvaznik:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Lutherans believe communicants receive the actual physical Body and Blood of Christ in, with, and under bread and wine. However, Lutherans reject Roman transubstantiation as being contrary to scripture and the teachings of the Church Catholic:

They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. Accordingly, they hold and teach that, with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. . .
Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ's testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression). For thus Justin says: This we receive not as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Savior, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 1580

[ September 26, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Ray listed the Lutheran Church which affirms the Real Presence, all the ecumenical creeds, and all the articles of apostolic doctrine.

Our churches dissent in no article of faith from the Church Catholic. Augsburg Confession. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but in reality, as I understand it, their doctrine is slightly different. While we believe that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the actual body and blood of Christ (the "accidents" of bread and wine remain) which we call transubstantiation, the Lutherans believe that the bread and wine remain unchanged but that Christ is present within the bread and wine called consubstantiation.

I may not have that stated right, so all you good Lutherans, please correct me here! </font>[/QUOTE]Lutherans believe in a sacramental union of the Body and Blood with the bread and wine. Lutherans reject Consubstantiation. The Confessional basis for this is provided in my previous post.

Consubstantiation is a "view, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner"(Christian Cyclopedia).

Lutheranism differs from transubstantiation and consubstantiation in that we believe in a real presence as oppose to a local presence. We reject notions that the body replaces the bread, that the body and the bread combine, or that the body and bread are side-by-side.

Lutheranism differs from Calvinism in that we believe that Christ is present according to His human nature as well as His divine nature. Just as in Christ the human and divine natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the bread and the natural body of Christ are united in a sacramental union.

 

W Putnam,

Thanks for your lengthy discourse.

I know you view 'the Body and blood of our Lord' is being the actual transformation of the bread and wine into His actual Person. Since there is such a difference of interpretations, I believe that it is not as important as other cardinal doctrines of the church which are more than clear to us.

I have seen one Protestant minister who was less than wise in the way he offered the Communion. In my churches that I served the Holy Sacrament was offered in a most reverend way. The Holy Communion represents my Lord, so how could I be casual about the way I ministered the elements. One time I clearly remember that one of the pieces of bread fell to the carpet, and I felt so badly that this happened. The bread stuck to the bottom of one of the silver plates. Now I think I would pick it up and consume it personally.

As to priests not marrying . . .

If the papal chairs are the best interpreters as to what Christ desires while He is in Heaven, why do all of the popes deny marriage to their servants of Christ? I say this because I Timothy 3:2 indicates that Christ speaking through the Apostle Paul encourages all who desire to marry-to do so, being within the perfect will of Almighty God. Here we have a situation where the pope is not the true vicar of Christ, because the popes have and remain in conflict with the will of God and Biblical statements of our Lord.

When an ecclesiastical system opposes the will of Christ Himself, that organization is going to have problems among their leadership. Would you agree with me?

Blessings on you . . . "Ray"

 

So we don't get going on 50 things at once I will just pick one at a time.

When was celibacy enforced and why? How would you synthesize that with the passage in 1 Timothy where it alks about the qualifications of a pastor.

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Titus 1:5-9, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

Doesn't Paul say in 1 Cor. 7:9, "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry ; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

It doesn't seem to me that celibacy is required in these passages.

Paul recommends singleness in 1 Cor. but never commands it. So how would you support the view of celibacy as a command from God?

 

Lutherans believe in a sacramental union of the Body and Blood with the bread and wine. Lutherans reject Consubstantiation. The Confessional basis for this is provided in my previous post.

Consubstantiation is a "view, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner"(Christian Cyclopedia).

Lutheranism differs from transubstantiation and consubstantiation in that we believe in a real presence as oppose to a local presence. We reject notions that the body replaces the bread, that the body and the bread combine, or that the body and bread are side-by-side.

Lutheranism differs from Calvinism in that we believe that Christ is present according to His human nature as well as His divine nature. Just as in Christ the human and divine natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the bread and the natural body of Christ are united in a sacramental union. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, I got it, I think...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

I disagree with you here. the discourse given in John 6 concerning the eating and drinking of His blood is obviously important to Jesus, since the depth of belief is so demanding that even some of His own disciples leave Him!

I consider it so important that in my retired life today, go to Mass daily to receive My Lord daily!

Another horror story was one told to me by a convert from the Anglican/Episcopal Church. A new pastor came to this church, but he was a "low church" type who apparently did not cater to the "bells and smells" of the high church rituals. Anyway, he was being given a tour of his new parish and when they visited the tabernacle (the container of the Blessed Sacrament) he then opened up the tabernacle, smelled of the contents of the ciborium and said, "these wafers are stale" the proceeded to dump the contents into a waste basket!

OK, but I do not recall bring up this subject...

You do realize that in scriptural times, even Peter was married! And probably some of the other apostles as well. But Christ was celibate who recommended that state if one can so do so, as well as Paul.

Also, on the famous discourse where we see the quallification of a bishop that he be the husband of "one wife" is not to be taken to mean that to be married is a qualifier for this office but that he is a widower. As a priest who was married before ordination, they were permitted to be married but they must be married before ordination. If the wife dies, the priest must not remarry. This is true in the canons of the Eastern Church, by the way, as well as the Orthodox Church. Therefore, a widoer priest (his wife is not deceased) can be a bishop, thus he was the husband of "one wife!"

First of all, demonstrate that it opposes the will of Christ when Christ Himself recommends celibacy. Furthermore, the canon of celibacy for the Latin Rite of the Church is only a canon law, a discipline, not a doctrine. That means that at the snap of his fingers, the pope could allow all priests to marry!

But don't hold your breath waiting for him to do that!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

That is a good question for which I don't have an answer. I believe that celibacy was imposed somewhere after the apostolic era, perhaps even until about A.D. 200. and that is a pure guess on my part. But even then, there was a monastic movement where men took vows of celibacy and lived a sparce life, either in a community or as hermits in a holy life. And by the way, I know of at least one priest who, when he is not going around and doing missions, is living the life of a hermit in solitary, parying daily in his isolation - a difficult spiritual thing to do.

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."[/b][/quote]

For one, I do not dispute that marriage was allowed in those times, including today in the Eastern Rites of the Church who are "in union with Rome" in every way, but they have their own canon concerning marriage, and thus have a married priesthood.

BUT, to be a bishop, a married priest was not eligable, until and unless he became a widower, and thus the "husband of one wife" and therefore, able to be a bishop.

Again, a priest could be married, but if his wife dies, he could not remarry! This applies to the Eastern Rites Churches, including the Orthodox Church! And today, the Latin Rite has a married deaconate, BUT, if their wife dies, they must remain unmarried!

And if they are not priests, then indeed they should marry! And if they have such passions that they cannot control, then they are probably not good candidates for the priesthood, are they?

I agree with you! It was a disciple that was imposed later on, by the authority of a church who has authority per the "keys of the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose."

And like I told Ray above, at the snap of his fingers, the pope could set aside the canon law on priestly celibacy and allow all priests to marry! It is that simple! It is only a disciplinary canon law, not a doctrine!

And again, don't hold your breath waiting for the pope to do this, not by a long shot!

I won't do it here, but there is an advantage of being single as a priest, and the missionary efforts of many priests and monks for centuries gives you a clue as to that advantage...

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

The Biblical indications are that Peter was a
married. As a pope wasn't he also a Bishop?
Again, I place my faith and trust in Jesus the
Christ, the Son of the Living God. I do not
place my faith and trust that my church attendance
will save me in any way. Nor do I believe that if
I do not participate in a particular church
tradition, will I lose my salvation or be
divorced from GOD.

 

That is a good question for which I don't have an answer. I believe that celibacy was imposed somewhere after the apostolic era, perhaps even until about A.D. 200. and that is a pure guess on my part. But even then, there was a monastic movement where men took vows of celibacy and lived a sparce life, either in a community or as hermits in a holy life. And by the way, I know of at least one priest who, when he is not going around and doing missions, is living the life of a hermit in solitary, parying daily in his isolation - a difficult spiritual thing to do.

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."</font>[/QUOTE]For one, I do not dispute that marriage was allowed in those times, including today in the Eastern Rites of the Church who are "in union with Rome" in every way, but they have their own canon concerning marriage, and thus have a married priesthood.

BUT, to be a bishop, a married priest was not eligable, until and unless he became a widower, and thus the "husband of one wife" and therefore, able to be a bishop.

Again, a priest could be married, but if his wife dies, he could not remarry! This applies to the Eastern Rites Churches, including the Orthodox Church! And today, the Latin Rite has a married deaconate, BUT, if their wife dies, they must remain unmarried!

And if they are not priests, then indeed they should marry! And if they have such passions that they cannot control, then they are probably not good candidates for the priesthood, are they?

I agree with you! It was a disciple that was imposed later on, by the authority of a church who has authority per the "keys of the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose."

And like I told Ray above, at the snap of his fingers, the pope could set aside the canon law on priestly celibacy and allow all priests to marry! It is that simple! It is only a disciplinary canon law, not a doctrine!

And again, don't hold your breath waiting for the pope to do this, not by a long shot!

I won't do it here, but there is an advantage of being single as a priest, and the missionary efforts of many priests and monks for centuries gives you a clue as to that advantage...

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon. [/b][/QUOTE]


Are you saying that the RCC views papal authority as equivalent to scripture?