How does the Catholic Church get away with it?

[Bismarck]

Fact: The Catholic Church counts St. Peter, Apostle of the Messiah, as the first pope
Source: Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia


Fact: St. Peter was married
Source: Matthew 8:14 -- the Messiah healed St. Peter's wife's mother
Source: 1 Corinthians 9:5 -- Paul says St. Peter travelled with his Christian wife
Source: Catholic Church Tradition relates that St. Peter was crucified in 67 CE after being forced to witness the execution of his wife (St. Clement's Stromata, Book VII, Chapter xi)


Fact: the Catholic Church derives its authority from St. Peter (who was married)


Fact: Current popes cannot marry


Logic: While "all the apostles" (1 Cor 9:5) were married, Catholic clergy cannot marry. While the first pope was married, current popes cannot marry. Therefore, if current Catholic traditions regarding clergy and popes are correct (and the Catholic Church claims it is infallible, "preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals"), then all the apostles and St. Peter violated the Sacrament of Orders and should have been deposed. But this would demolish the very authorities from whom the Catholic Church claims its own authority.

Conclusion: The Catholic position is inconsistent.


Question: Given an alteration in Christian practice (such as with Clerical Celibacy), which is more likely to be right, early Christian practice closer to the time of the Messiah, or later Christian practice further from the time of the Messiah? For example, is it more likely that St. Peter was in error, or that current popes are in error?

 

[donnA]

When you make your own rules you can do what you want too. Which is what the RCC has done.

 

[Pipedude]

It's not a matter of faith and morals, it's a matter of discipline. That is, they think clerical celibacy is best for now. They could change it next year without any inconsistency if they felt that a change was advisable.

Google Catholic apologetics.

 

[donnA]

Isn't it nice to know, God and His word do not change, we can depend on it no matter what man makes up.

 

[HankD]

When you make your own rules you can do what you want too. Which is what the RCC has done.

Not only make your own rules but demand (upon the pain of excommunication) for you to believe it because God told them to make the rule (ex cathedra).

HankD

 

[Jkdbuck76]

My best friend is Catholic, my boss is Catholic, my stepdad is Catholic.

I go to a baptist church..... What went wrong? :laugh:

In any case, they explain to me that celibacy is a discipline only. At some
point, they could decide that being married is OK for their clergy. It is a
discipline and not a dogma.

They will never have women priests, because that is a dogma of the Roman
Catholic faith. But one day, priests might be allowed to marry, since that
is a discipline and not a dogma.

Eastern Orthodox priests may marry BTW.

 

[npetreley]

I'd recommend we get our own house in order before we start bashing Catholicism and its errors. There's plenty we could fix, and it seems more constructive to me to focus on that.

 

[skypair]

Bismark

There's an interesting book I read recently about the early church fathers (ECF). It sheds light on this whole thing.

There were many who took the model of John the Baptist going into the wilderness and living lives of separation and deprivation. These gusy were kinda weird and part of their "schtick" was doing miracles or odd things like standing on a pole or rock all day in prayer -- circus stuff we'd call it today.

BUT as the church became more worldly, the people gravitated to these hermits until the church said, "We've got to make some show of restraint."

What the Bible calls "will worship. Col 2:23 -- "Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." But Paul calls this false religion.

At that point, a few of these former hermits came into the city and joined the "reforming" church. When they died, their bones were put in the church and worshipped, blah, blah, blah. And, of course, all this had a lasting influence on the RCC -- hence "forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats". Paul called these the "departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." 1Tim 4:1-2

skypair

 

[HankD]

I'd recommend we get our own house in order before we start bashing Catholicism and its errors. There's plenty we could fix, and it seems more constructive to me to focus on that.

I agree that we should do what we can to contribute to the health of at least our local church.

But what is wrong with speaking out against to a major religion in the world which teaches a gospel of works all the while masquerading as "The True Apostolic Church" with a long history of of persecution and bloodshed as well?

Speaking as a former Catholic, I'm not going to do that.


HankD

 

[npetreley]

But what is wrong with speaking out against to a major religion in the world which teaches a gospel of works

Nothing. We do it all the time here, only it's not Catholicism we're criticising.

 

[J.D.]

Catholicism is at the bottom of a "slippery slope". We must always be on guard that we ourselves are not on that slope. It's good that we sharpen each other, but we have to watch out for condemning attitudes.

 

[rsr]

The question is certainly fair game but doesn't belong in this forum, which is about Baptist theology and Bible study.

The thread is being closed here but may be reopened in a more appropriate forum.

rsr