Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

[WPutnam]

Qb replied, commenting only on the "tagline" of my previous message with:

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

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

No, and the "tagline" has nothing to do with scripture - it is simply a "tagline."

St. Augustine had just concluded in his sermon, a discussion about a serious heresy that the Holy See in Rome had just ruled upon, as I recall (not having the work before me.) And St. Augustine is simply saying, Rome has made the final decision, therefore the case is closed concerning this problem. It illustrates Augustine's belief in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[A_Christian]

There are advantages to being married. I attended
small community church when I was a child. The
minister's wife taught a Sunday school class,
lead the children's choir, and played the piano.

But of course there was no pope telling her that
married ministers need not apply...

 

[Ray Berrian]

W Putnam,

I had said previously, '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.

Ray is saying, Does not the papacy abuse their power when they contridict Scripture when the Lord says that the clergy can marry? [I Timothy 3:2]

Please, try to give me a brief paragraph; I don't want to miss what you are saying.

 

[A_Christian]

As for the listing of the popes, historically
you will find that most of those listed early
on were only the bishop of a church in Rome and
were not considered popes by their contemporary
flock nor their fellow bishops of other
city churches. It is pope Leo that assumes
control. Much of the Roman Chatholic church
history has been influenced accordingly.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
[QB] (Continued from previous message)

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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: </font>[/QUOTE]I would disagree with you in one way. The epistles are letters that were written and read in the churches. For example the letter to the Ephesians was a letter that was circulated among the house churches in the region of Ephesus.

The NT was being written while the church was in process. However you will notice that there are an immense number of quotes from the OT. For example when Jesus reasoned with anybody he used what they considered credible. The Sadducees only believed the Torah and the Pharisees believed all of the OT. So when Jesus is speaking he only uses what they value to prove his point.

The new believers only had the OT and they used it to lead others to a saving relationship with Jesus. The Jews never considered the Apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha part of their Bible.

If the papal authority is not equal to scripture then simple logic would say that it must be greater or less than scripture. From what I gather you say that when the pope says it that settles it. From what I can tell the pope declarations supercede scripture. Certainly you are aware that many of the early clergy among the RCC were married. That doesn’t seem to agree with the pope declaring celibacy as the formal doctrine. That definitely goes against what the scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit says. That is superceding scripture. It is one thing if a man wants to remain single and another if he wants to get married. But either way it is not mandated by scripture to be a pastor.

Mu hunch is that it is more economics than a theological issue with the RCC. You could never raise a family on what a typical priest makes.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
There are advantages to being married. I attended
small community church when I was a child. The
minister's wife taught a Sunday school class,
lead the children's choir, and played the piano.

But of course there was no pope telling her that
married ministers need not apply...

And there are advantages for a priest NOT to be married, such as in missionary work and putting one's self in grave danger. The unmarried missionary is not divided in his concern for himself and a family, which would tend to have him not to be so engaged that is dangerous. By himself, with only his one life to be concerned about, death is martyrdom and an instant ticket to heaven.

In addition, an unmarried missionary has little encumberance in his baggage - he can pick and go at a moment's notice.

These advantages, which indicate the unmarried undivided attention to the mission for the Lord, is the primary reason the Catholic Church continues with celibacy.

I understand the advantages of the wife who helps as you pointed out, but I also hear of great stresses placed on the children that they must be "goody two shoes" else be mocked by their peers. I think most wifes of Protestant ministers will testify to how difficult it is to be a minister's wife, so much is expected of her.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
W Putnam,

I had said previously, '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.

Ray is saying, Does not the papacy abuse their power when they contridict Scripture when the Lord says that the clergy can marry? [I Timothy 3:2]

Please, try to give me a brief paragraph; I don't want to miss what you are saying.

Who is speaking here, the Lord or Paul? While we can both agree that Paul is inspired to say what he says by the holy Spirit, still, we see it coming from the mouth of Paul for the conditions of the times.

Look at the qualifications Paul is speaking of for one to be a bishop. Would you not like your pastor, bishop, minister, etc. to be like Paul is speaking of here? Would it also be most desirable that your pastor be "married only once"? What does that mean? Does it mean that he must remain unmarried if his wife dies" (not marry a second time) or does it mean that he can have only one wife at a time? That sounds funny, but I have had some tell me that therefore, if you are not a bishop, you can have more then one wife as in polygamy, and we know that is and was not the Christian way, was it?

The only interpretation we Catholics see is that if a man is "married only once" is to indicate that he is now a widower. Otherwise, he would be married still to a living wife! Of course, the man can never have been married and be qualified, but being a widower does not disqualify him from being a bishop.

Or are you going to tell me that to be a bishop, a single minister must get married to qualify to be a bishop? Think about this real hard...

Sorry, but I went to three paragraphs!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Listen, my son, to what I tell you now. Do not be troubled,
nor disturbed by anything, nor pain, Are you not under my
shadow, my protection? And am I not life and health? Do
you need anything else? Do not be troubled, or take thought
of your uncle's illness, for he will not die of this seizure,
and is well even now"

What the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe said to Juan Diego,
just before he discovered that his uncle was completely cured.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
As for the listing of the popes, historically
you will find that most of those listed early
on were only the bishop of a church in Rome and
were not considered popes by their contemporary
flock nor their fellow bishops of other
city churches. It is pope Leo that assumes
control. Much of the Roman Chatholic church
history has been influenced accordingly.

Excuse me but every Catholic Church does not have a bishop. In fact, most churches do not have one. But in a diocese, where there is a bishop a church that is the "bishop's church" is called a Cathedral. Cathedra chair. What the bishop sits when he leads his congregation at Mass and other events.

In large dioceses, called archdioceses, the archbishop (just a title, he is still a bishop), may have one or more auxiliary bishops to help the principle bishop to run such a large diocese.

As the Church grew in large cities and especially in Rome, it was also common for there to be auxiliary bishops, in fact, quite a few of them. But there is only one Bishop of Rome.

And the Bishop of Rome is always the Pope, since he is he successor to the first Bishop of Rome who was Peter.

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

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The new believers only had the OT and they used it to lead others to a saving relationship with Jesus. The Jews never considered the Apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha part of their Bible.

I'm not sure that's completely accurate. At the time of Jesus there was a flexibility among Jews regarding the extent of their "canon". In Palestine, most Jews probably only considered the 22 (or 24, depending on how counted) books we call the OT as scripture. Two notable exceptions were the Sadduccees (who acknowledged only the five books of Moses) and the Essenes (who used the "Apocrypha" and other works). The Jews of the dispersion, however, had a broader collection of Scriptures as it contained the books known by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". The early church used this bulkier OT (the LXX) as its OT uniformly for the first couple of centuries. (In fact, Christ and the Apostles quoted from the LXX.) Early church fathers routinely quoted these extra books as Scripture. It wasn't probably until the Council of Jamnia in about AD 90, that the Jews defined their canon--excluding both the NT and the additional OT books found in the LXX. It was after this, that some Christians started questioning the "Deuterocanonicals" since the Jews did not include them in their Canon. Church Fathers differed in regard to the canonicity, inspiration, authority, and usefulness of these books, with many taking the middle ground--they were useful for edification but not necessarily authoritative to establish doctrine. Even so, the majority of Christians continued reading and using them in some form or fashion.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
[QB] (Continued from previous message)

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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: </font>[/QUOTE]I would disagree with you in one way. The epistles are letters that were written and read in the churches. For example the letter to the Ephesians was a letter that was circulated among the house churches in the region of Ephesus.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course! But while the Church ap Ephesus received this letter, the other regional churches, such as at Corinth, Thessoloniki (I've been to that city!), and other places did not have that letter! They had their own letters written to them, but not the letters that were written to other churches.

It was not until much later, as when they were collected together as one book, that we had the New Testament. That occurrec in tghe 3rd century with several church synods and approved by the pope, until it was formally accepted at the Council of Trent.

And by the way, in case you did not know it, the deuterocanonicals (which you folks call the apocyphra) were always included in the Old Testament!

The NT was being written while the church was in process. However you will notice that there are an immense number of quotes from the OT. For example when Jesus reasoned with anybody he used what they considered credible. The Sadducees only believed the Torah and the Pharisees believed all of the OT. So when Jesus is speaking he only uses what they value to prove his point.

I totally agree here. This period is called the inscripturation period, and there is no doubt that the proof of the mission of Christ was indeed, found in the Old Testament, and no wonder it was quoted a lot! Therein lies the prophasy of the comming of the Messiah! And in fact, the Bereans "searched the scriptures" (which was the Old Testament only, as the New Testament was not in existent yet) to confirm what Paul was telling them about Jesus Christ the risen Lord and the new covenant of the gospel!

The new believers only had the OT and they used it to lead others to a saving relationship with Jesus. The Jews never considered the Apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha part of their Bible.

Yes, and for those who had possession of the Old Testament and could read, they also had the oral gospel, handed down by word of mouth, until it was inscripturated into the New Testament.

If the papal authority is not equal to scripture then simple logic would say that it must be greater or less than scripture.

That is a strange way of putting it, creating a false dichotomy that there is some sort of a tension between the papacy and scripture. But you must note that before the New Testament was collated and canonized by the Church and her councils, the only authority around was in the oral and Sacred Traditions of the Church, or to put it better, the Magisterium of the Church. That collective body, protected by Christ in that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" that she would have great authority.

and guess what, Ray? After the Church "produced" what is now the New Testament, she herself declared it as authority equal to her own! But she was that institution with the prime and only authority given to it by Christ per Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18, Matthew 28:19, and John 20:22-23 and others.

From what I gather you say that when the pope says it that settles it. From what I can tell the pope declarations supercede scripture.

A false dichotomy that is stuck in your own head, Ray! I'm not putting you down, but it is a similar perception when I was a Fundamentalist myself, but then how can a pope go against a scripture his own church and prior popes approved and canonized ad divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture with authority as from the mouth of the apostles? It is sheer madness for Catholics to even contemplate such an impossibility! If it were so, indeed, not only the Catholic Church but all of Christianity would be one big fraud, frought with and wallowing in error for 1500 before "Luther began to correct it"? I don't think so...

Certainly you are aware that many of the early clergy among the RCC were married. That doesn’t seem to agree with the pope declaring celibacy as the formal doctrine. That definitely goes against what the scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit says. That is superceding scripture. It is one thing if a man wants to remain single and another if he wants to get married. But either way it is not mandated by scripture to be a pastor.

Ray, I have said that already! I acknowledge a married clergy in the early days of the Church? Peter, the first pope was married! The Eastern Rite Catholics to this very day have a married priesthood! It is only a discipline for the Western Church, a canon law, that can be changed in an instant, unlike a doctrine or dogma that is unchangable.

Mu hunch is that it is more economics than a theological issue with the RCC. You could never raise a family on what a typical priest makes.

Hay, economics did indeed play a bit part in it?
A single priest-missionary could go off in an instant into the mission fields, dangerious as it was, without regard to wife and family, and spread the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, often to be martyred for his efforts!

We have a calander of such martyrs, who enjoy the "honor of the altar" (Canonized saints) who were martyred in Japan, Korea, and other hostile places in the world for the last 2000 years.

Yes, celibacy do have it's advantages!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[gb93433]

I would disagree with you in one way. The epistles are letters that were written and read in the churches. For example the letter to the Ephesians was a letter that was circulated among the house churches in the region of Ephesus.

In Acts 20 Paul gives the elders from Ephesus instruction. Each of those elders are pastors of a single house church. There were a number of small house churches in the local area of Ephesus.
It would be like a number of small house churches called the church like the town you live in.

And by the way, in case you did not know it, the deuterocanonicals (which you folks call the apocyphra) were always included in the Old Testament!

You are right. The were included and quoted. But never in the canon as we know it. Paul also quoted other things too. Such as “All Cretans are liars.”

After the Church "produced" what is now the New Testament, she herself declared it as authority equal to her own!

That is quite a statement to make. It is like declaring its own authority is the same as God’s. Scripture teaches that all are under God’s sovereign authority. The Bible says that we are to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God. The church is people. All people are to be humble.

Yes, celibacy do have it's advantages!

Both marriage and celibacy do.

 

[WPutnam]

Qb replied:

I would disagree with you in one way. The epistles are letters that were written and read in the churches. For example the letter to the Ephesians was a letter that was circulated among the house churches in the region of Ephesus.

In Acts 20 Paul gives the elders from Ephesus instruction. Each of those elders are pastors of a single house church. There were a number of small house churches in the local area of Ephesus.
It would be like a number of small house churches called the church like the town you live in.

Did I reply to the above paragraph already? I went back to look, so I will paste-in what I said already:

Of course! But while the Church ap Ephesus received this letter, the other regional churches, such as at Corinth, Thessoloniki (I've been to that city!), and other places did not have that letter! They had their own letters written to them, but not the letters that were written to other churches.

It was not until much later, as when they were collected together as one book, that we had the New Testament. That occurrec in tghe 3rd century with several church synods and approved by the pope, until it was formally accepted at the Council of Trent.

I last said:

And by the way, in case you did not know it, the deuterocanonicals (which you folks call the apocyphra) were always included in the Old Testament!

You are right. The were included and quoted. But never in the canon as we know it. Paul also quoted other things too. Such as "All Cretans are liars."

No, they were included in the canon of the Old Testament from the very first church synods.

Here is an interesting link that discusses this issue, what some of the early fathers wrote and including those same synods (councils) that occurred in the 3rd century:

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

After the Church "produced" what is now the New Testament, she herself declared it as authority equal to her own!

That is quite a statement to make. It is like declaring its own authority is the same as God's. Scripture teaches that all are under God's sovereign authority. The Bible says that we are to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God. The church is people. All people are to be humble.

Oh, I know it is quite a statement!

It often startles people when they hear it for the first time, but it is so true, it hurts! Just think about it. How would you have the very New Testament in your hands if the Catholic Church was unconcerned about collecting together all of the writings, determining who was the author, and then declaring then divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture?

And humility has nothing to do with it if it is true! The very same scripture that says what you say it says, is yours to read, thanks to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who by her husbanding and care, preserved it for all of us today! And no other church can make that statement as it is a pure non-refuted fact!

But be my guest if you can indeed, refute it!

Yes, celibacy do have it's advantages!

Both marriage and celibacy do.

Which is why I am married, with 7 adult children, and 15 grandchildren, and two more on the "building ways" to use an old Navy term…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[Ray Berrian]

W Putnam,

You still have not answered directly my question. Here it is one more time.

'Ray is saying, Does not the papacy abuse her power when the pope contridicts Scripture when the Lord says that the clergy can marry? [I Timothy 3:2]

We believe that what Christ wanted us to know was written down in the epistles and other books of the Bible via the pen of the apostles and St. Luke. So when I Timothy 3:2 is read it is not merely the ideas and understanding of St. Paul, but more importantly, the truth coming from Christ Himself. This is why our Bible is our sole authority, and if you will, our paper pope.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
W Putnam,

You still have not answered directly my question. Here it is one more time.

'Ray is saying, Does not the papacy abuse her power when the pope contridicts Scripture when the Lord says that the clergy can marry? [I Timothy 3:2]

Answser: NO.

But it is almost like asking, "when was the last time you beat your momma?" Like this one, it presumes a situation (pope contridicts scripture; pope abuses his power) like it does in my example (I beat my momma).

And so if you want to persue this line of reasoning, you must produce some evidence that the pope contridicts scripture and abuse his power.

Have at it.

We believe that what Christ wanted us to know was written down in the epistles and other books of the Bible via the pen of the apostles and St. Luke.

We Catholics believe pretty much the same thing in that the providence of God had them to write in inspiration, but how do you really know that if it were not for the Church to tell you that?

Something occurred to me as I was leaving church yesterday, coming home:

How is it that you have faith in a book, the bible, the direct product of human hands in cooperation with the grace of God who inspired it, and yet not have faith in a church, which the same God, His Divine Son, established with human members?

Both are products of humans, the bible being written by human hands and so preserved, the church being governed and operated also by human hands and human minds. Both are claimed to be inspired by God, yet one is held at the sole authority, it's esistence being dependant upon the production efforts of the very church rejected.

I find that to be incredible!

So when I Timothy 3:2 is read it is not merely the ideas and understanding of St. Paul, but more importantly, the truth coming from Christ Himself. This is why our Bible is our sole authority, and if you will, our paper pope.

How do you know if it is the "truth coming from Christ Himself"?

Who told you?

Your pastor, your wife, that good feeling in your heart as you read it? What?

I have that same feeling when I see the good that came out of the original church as founded by Christ and the only one that can trace her history back to Him, the Catholic Church.

I have her beautiful gergorian chant, the witness of the early church fathers and of course, the thousands of holy men and woman who are given the "honors of the altar" as formally canonized saints, her glorious Sacrifice of the Mass, and by all means, all Seven Sacraments still maintained by only a few other churches, the Orthodox Church to name one. Saying that, I have only scratched the surface...

But I must also include scripture, but not alone, but in symbiotic realationship with the very church who preserved it, canonized it, and by her authority, the only authority around to do so at the time, declare the present construct of the New Testament as divinely inspired "God breathed" written Word of God.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
[qb] W Putnam,

You still have not answered directly my question. Here it is one more time.

'Ray is saying, Does not the papacy abuse her power when the pope contridicts Scripture when the Lord says that the clergy can marry? [I Timothy 3:2]

Answser: NO.

But it is almost like asking, "when was the last time you beat your momma?" Like this one, it presumes a situation (pope contridicts scripture; pope abuses his power) like it does in my example (I beat my momma).

And so if you want to persue this line of reasoning, you must produce some evidence that the pope contridicts scripture and abuse his power.

Have at it.

</font>[/QUOTE]How about the doctrine of celibacy?

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And so if you want to persue this line of reasoning, you must produce some evidence that the pope contridicts scripture and abuse his power.

Have at it.

How about the doctrine of celibacy? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, we have no "doctrine" (dogma) on celibacy, but we do have a canon law on it. And unlike doctrine which cannot be changed, canon law can be.

But how about celibacy, qb? Christ was celibate and so was Paul, and they both recommended it!

If that is your only reply, you are running out of steam big time, qb. But if you want to read some of the things I have said about it so far, read this thread where the subject is broached.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And so if you want to persue this line of reasoning, you must produce some evidence that the pope contridicts scripture and abuse his power.

Have at it.

How about the doctrine of celibacy? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, we have no "doctrine" (dogma) on celibacy, but we do have a canon law on it. And unlike doctrine which cannot be changed, canon law can be.

But how about celibacy, qb? Christ was celibate and so was Paul, and they both recommended it!

If that is your only reply, you are running out of steam big time, qb. But if you want to read some of the things I have said about it so far, read this thread where the subject is broached.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48) </font>[/QUOTE]You are right in that Jesus and Paul were celibate. But Paul and Jesus never commanded it for pastors. Paul only recommended it. The RCC does not recommened it. It requires (commands) it for priests. Why should anybody or any chruch body do different than Jesus or Paul?

Look up he word doctrine in any dictionary and it will give the literal definition as teaching. The pope taught celibacy, did he not? If it is not a teaching then why is it a requirement?

So are you saying that the RCC has some teachings that change and some that do not?

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by gb93433:
You are right in that Jesus and Paul were celibate. But Paul and Jesus never commanded it for pastors. Paul only recommended it. The RCC does not recommened it. It requires (commands) it for priests. Why should anybody or any chruch body do different than Jesus or Paul?

First of all, I belong to the Catholic Church, not just the "Roman" Catholic Church, a term I detest as an oxymoron, put upon us by the Anglican schism. That said, please note that the Eastern Rites of the Church has a married priesthood.

Now, did not Christ give the church authority in Matthew 16:18-19 or not? If so, then does the church then have the right to impose requirements on it's priesthood? If a man does not like that, he simply does not become a priest! The fact that the church has the power to "bind and loose" tells me that the church has the power to set the rules of discipline within her ranks. It is that simple.

Look up he word doctrine in any dictionary and it will give the literal definition as teaching. The pope taught celibacy, did he not? If it is not a teaching then why is it a requirement?

To teach that God has three persons in the holy Trinity is a doctrine, defined as dogma many centuries ago, a truth always taught and believed in. A discipline is not taught but imposed.

So are you saying that the RCC has some teachings that change and some that do not?

No, I am saying that her doctrines never change, but her canon law can and does.

The Church has always taught the doctrine of the Eucharist as we have it today. It is a core belief of Catholics.

But tomorrow, the Church can relax the discipline of celibacy with the stroke of a pen (but don't hold your breath!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
[qb] W Putnam,

Something occurred to me as I was leaving church yesterday, coming home:

How is it that you have faith in a book, the bible, the direct product of human hands in cooperation with the grace of God who inspired it, and yet not have faith in a church, which the same God, His Divine Son, established with human members?

Both are products of humans, the bible being written by human hands and so preserved, the church being governed and operated also by human hands and human minds. Both are claimed to be inspired by God, yet one is held at the sole authority, it's existence being dependant upon the production efforts of the very church rejected.

I find that to be incredible!

The Bible was written by human hands and inspired by God. God gave the church and gave the responsibility to man to what was right not in its own eyes but God’s. The church is to follow God. It is a choice that people make to follow God or not.

It is the church that is to follow God’s Word not the other way around. God’s Word was given to the Jews and then to the church for faith and practice. The church was not given as a source of faith and practice. The church is not the denomination or building. It is those who are believers in Jesus Christ. The Church is to follow Christ. In Heb 11:6 it states that without faith it is impossible to please Him. The church pleases God by putting their trust/faith in Jesus Christ nit the church. Churches are comprised of fallible people who hold a lower standard than God’s. Why would I want to follow a lower standard than God’s.

Christ is the head of the church. It is much like a football team. You have the leader--the coach and then the players. The players would be like the church and the coach would be like Christ. The football team is led by the coach and the players do as the coach commands. The coach does not do as the players wish but they do as the coach wishes. When the players do as the coach wishes they have a successful team. But if there are dissenters then the team is weakened. If the players do as they want and dissent from what the coach wants they will not very likely have a successful team. You might have an assistant coach to help the head coach. But the head coach still calls the shots.

To say that the people must follow a church is like saying the people must follow themselves. The people are the church. All people in the church must follow Christ.

Can you show me anything that shows where Christ inspired the church? I am unable to find anything in that regard.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it is clearly stated that all scripture is inspired by God.

 

[WPutnam]

Qb replied, where I last said:

Something occurred to me as I was leaving church yesterday, coming home:

How is it that you have faith in a book, the bible, the direct product of human hands in cooperation with the grace of God who inspired it, and yet not have faith in a church, which the same God, His Divine Son, established with human members?

Both are products of humans, the bible being written by human hands and so preserved, the church being governed and operated also by human hands and human minds. Both are claimed to be inspired by God, yet one is held at the sole authority, it's existence being dependent upon the production efforts of the very church rejected.

I find that to be incredible!

The Bible was written by human hands and inspired by God. God gave the church and gave the responsibility to man to what was right not in its own eyes but God's. The church is to follow God. It is a choice that people make to follow God or not.

But by what do you go by the determine if scripture is "inspired by God"? Also, what do you consider "scripture" and what is not scripture? You do realize there were quite a few contemporary writings around the time of the apostles, of which you may be interested in seeing a list (which I think I have posted before):

Paste-in here…

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

End of paste-in…

Now, did you happen to notice that none[/I] of the above list is included in your New Testament, qb. Do you know why? Some local/regional churches wanted the famous didache included (which you will find in the above list) as well as a few others), and at the same time, disputed the value of James, Hebrews and the Book of Revelations.

My Catholic bible reflects the results of a decision reached by several church synods (church councils) near the end of the 3rd century at Cathage, Hippo and Rome, including the deuterocanonicals that were accepted by Christians from the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament.

Now, the last time I checked a Protestant Bible, they had exactly the same identical canon as in my Catholic bible! Imagine that! And guess what, qb, it was the audacity of the Catholic Church in those councils, their findings approved by the reigning pope at the time, and finalized at the Council of Trent years later, that we see reflected in your very own Protestant New Testament!

We can discuss the OT deuterocanonicals another time, wondering by what authority Luther and other decided to exclude them. We know the Jews at their Council of Jamnia in circa AD 70 excluded all Greek texts (including the (gasp!) those writings in Greek that was to become the New Testament) but where was their authority to do so, now that they did follow Jesus into His new covenant, whereby all authority goes to His church and no longer the Jews?

It is the church that is to follow God's Word not the other way around.

To follow what in God's Word? And what was God's word, that Oral word given by Christ to his apostles, before it was written, qb? How does a church "follow scripture" if it were not written yet?

(Continued in next post)