The Truth about the RCC

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu: We have already been down this beaten path once before and you either didn’t pay attention or just refused to listen.

As Mess288 has already pointed out and as did I on a previous thread, Celibacy isn’t a doctrine or dogma, it’s a practice. A practice that Catholic priest’s willingly and voluntarily accept for the sake of the kingdom.





Read carefully the very words of Christ:

Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).​

-

So, you believe that the Priests can repeal the vow of Celibacy any time?
Actually any Vow is not right.

Read the Bible here:
Matthew 5:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Then, do you claim that the priests of RCC can still remain as the priests of RCC even after the marriage? If not why should they quit?

I showed the Bible verses of 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:5-6, and 1 Cor 7:2.

But why then the married men cannot remain as the priests there?

Are you still denying that the Celibacy is the Obligatory?
Then you should become the next Pope to rescind the Bull of the current Pope.

I know the tactics of RCC. It is for the Hypocrites to look Holy, thinking that Celibacy is holier than the marriage. which is groundless.

Alexander 6, the most notorious pope in the hisotry of Popes, married but remained as the Pope, and made his son a Cardinal at the age of 18. It is well known that Pope Alexander 6 had the STD, and had many mistresses, had sex with prostitutes there. This is why Bible kindly teaches us this:

1 Cor 7:
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


Can anyone overturn the Decree of the Councils?

1139-Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council’s decree.
1545-63-Council of Trent states that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage.


http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

The stance of Rcc on this has been very much hypocritic!

Read the followings:

Popes who were married
St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139

Innocent VIII 1484-1492 several children
Alexander VI 1492-1503several children
Julius1503-15133 daughters
Paul III1534-15493 sons, 1 daughter
Pius IV1559-15653 sons
Gregory XIII1572-1585 1 son


Popes who were the sons of other popes, other clergy

Name of Pope Papacy Son of
St. Damascus I366-348St. Lorenzo, priestSt.
Innocent I401-417Anastasius I
Boniface418-422son of a priest
St. Felix483-492son of a priest
Anastasius II 496-498 son of a priest
St. Agapitus I 535-536 Gordiaous, priest
St. Silverus536-537 St. Homidas,
popeDeusdedit882-884son of a priest
Boniface VI 896-896Hadrian, bishop
John XI 931-935 Pope Sergius III
John XV989-996 Leo, priest
http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

This is a tip of the Iceberg.
This is a matter of Hypocrisy.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So, you believe that the Priests can repeal the vow of Celibacy any time?

Sure, why not?

Actually any Vow is not right.

So my marriage vows are wrong? God gives both my wife and I the grace we need to endure the hardships marriage entails for better or for worse and God grants the same grace for the celibate priest.

But why then the married men cannot remain as the priests there?

They're married priest in the Catholic Church Eliyahu, only they don’t pastor a Church. Many are former married Episcopal or Orthodox priests and they teach at Seminaries or even act as deacons in a Catholic parish.

Are you still denying that the Celibacy is the Obligatory?

To be a parish priest, no, but you make it out by using ‘obligatory’, as though the priest or seminarian is being forced. Catholics entering the priesthood agree to a life of celibacy. This has been a mandate of the church since 1139.

Again, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. Those who do forsake marriage, do so for the sake of the kingdom.

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 7-9, 32-33 we read: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided.

Why is that hard for you to understand? Obliviously celibacy isn't a problem in the Catholic faith, b/c new priest's are ordained yearly and all understand what they are forsaking and why.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Sure, why not?

My question was whether he can repeal the vow of celibacy while he still maintain the post. I am not talking about the celibacy itself, but the "Obligatory" Celibacy combined with the post. Therefore, If the priest repealed the Celibacy, then he is no longer the priest, right?

So my marriage vows are wrong? God gives both my wife and I the grace we need to endure the hardships marriage entails for better or for worse and God grants the same grace for the celibate priest.

So, are you saying Jesus was wrong?
In the Marriage, we don't call it Vow, but the declaration of the marriage relationship. But the Vow to Celibacy is to the people of the church. Human beings are so much fragile and cannot keep any Vow, which was the reason why Jesus prohibited it.

They're married priest in the Catholic Church Eliyahu, only they don’t pastor a Church. Many are former married Episcopal or Orthodox priests and they teach at Seminaries or even act as deacons in a Catholic parish.

You are talking about the M&A business of RCC. RCC is the religion of expansion since it started. I hope you know about the split in 251AD when Fabian died and Cornellius was elected and the minority gathered with Novatian. RCC will do anything to embrace Islam and Russian Orthodox, and therefore RCC will allow the exceptions in such cases. I am not talking about such M&A groups but the Organic portion of RCC which will remain as the backbone of the future World Religion under the Pope the Great.
I hope you are not saying that there are mixtures of the married and celibate priests in your church.

To be a parish priest, no, but you make it out by using ‘obligatory’, as though the priest or seminarian is being forced. Catholics entering the priesthood agree to a life of celibacy. This has been a mandate of the church since 1139.

This is what I said groundless in the Bible.

Again, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. Those who do forsake marriage, do so for the sake of the kingdom.

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 7-9, 32-33 we read: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs -- how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world -- how he can please his wife -- and his interests are divided.

Why is that hard for you to understand? Obliviously celibacy isn't a problem in the Catholic faith, b/c new priest's are ordained yearly and all understand what they are forsaking and why.
-

I know the teachings of 1 Cor 7, but I would point out the greater principle.

1) Which would you choose between 2, one man vowed the celibacy but committed various fornication and adultery in his actual life. the other man didn't vow the celibacy and married a woman and lived the faithful life for the Lord. Do you think the first man was more dedicated for the Lord?

2) Many Catholic priests and popes revealed the great problems with sex, homosex, pedophile, etc. Those cases prove that no human organization can impose any more requirements than the Bible, the Words of God, says.
If we dig out the whole history of RCC, there may be none, no priest at all who can claim he lived the life of the holy celibacy.
If you deny it, try to read this:

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/clerical_celibacy_and_pedophilic.htm

That's why Bible doesn't require any church leaders to be celibate, but RCC impose a certain excessive requirements more than the Bible. This is still the problem of Hypocrisy and Clergy system. If the Celibacy is better and acceptable, it is not the matter of Priesthood, but anyone can do it. Even among the Protestants, there have been some people who kept the celibacy like J.N. Darby who started the Plymouth Brethren movement.

But the point is that no human organization can or should impose what the Bible didn't ask for. Otherwise, there will be bigger problems.

 

[Eliyahu]

I hope Agnus is not weeping now ! :laugh:

As the issue of Celibacy is brought up, I would clarify it this way:

1. The Biblical church described by Paul, in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.

1) Married man could be ordained as Bishop ( =Elder=Overseer)

2) Man can be a single when he is ordained as a Bishop( =Overseer or Elder) but when he is married, he can still remain as a Bishop( Overseer) or Elder.

3) Bishop( Overseer) or Elder can have children, and he must nurture and educated them as godly men.

Read the followings:

1 Tim 3: 2 and 4
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

Titus 1:6

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.


2. Roman Catholic Church

1) Married man cannot be ordained as a priest or bishop

2) If a priest is married, he must quit the post.

3) Priest cannot have children



In other words, the Elders or Overseers qualified by the Bible cannot be qualified for any Priest or Bishop of RCC.

If anyone claimed the teachings of Biblical church during Dark Age, he or she would have been condemned as a Heretic and might have been put even to death by RCC.

Did Paul forget that he wrote 1 Cor 7:32-38 ( superiority of Celibacy over marriage) when he wrote the above mentioned Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 ?

Didn't Paul know about Matthew 19:10-12 when he wrote the Epistle to Titus and Timothy?

Can you not see the difference between the Biblical church and the Roman religion yet?

Even many great workers for the Lord of the Early church were married. Were they all less devoted for the Lord than the priests of RCC today?

Read here:
1 Cor 9:
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

We can learn from above:
1) Apostle can have a wife
2) Peter the first Pope was married.
3) Many apostles were married.
4) The brothers of the Lord were married ( Mary had other sons than Jesus!)
5) Paul didn't use his right to marry, but refrained from it for the Lord.

I showed you many popes were married officially or had mistresses or concubines, and there have been continuously the sexual misconducts by the popes and other RCC hierarchy.

We must remember again that this Obligatory Celibacy is a matter of Hypocrisy because we know huge amount of sex scandals throughout the history, throughout the world even today.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I hope Agnus is not weeping now!

I’m sorry Eliyahu, but there’s no weeping here.

Fact is there’s no strict biblical rule that mandates those that pastor a Church must be married or must be celibate. Again, celibacy is a practice, not an unchangeable dogma. There’s nothing theology speaking that’s keeping the Church from changing this practice or discipline.

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy3, 2-5 leads to at lest one problem. If the husband of one wife really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way would mean that he had to have children (plural). Childless husbands (or even fathers with one child, since again, Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

Or how about those whose wife dies or children die…are they disqualified?

Fact is Eliyahu, Paul’s point is that the bishop be the husband of one wife, not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Moreover, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married). Do you understand what Paul is saying and how you’re twisting the Word of God to fit your agenda?

In fact Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, makes a pretty case for celibacy, which he concludes in verse 38, that he who marries does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Once again, we turn to the words of Christ, whom you seem to ignore, that Christ plainly states in Matthew 19:11-12, that those who renounce marriage have done so for the sake of the kingdom.

I’m married and am the father of 3 kids and work full time…may family comes first, job second…I can’t dedicate 100% to my job and 100% to my family. Something has to give. There’s two guys I work with who are at work from 6am to 7 or 8pm at night and work most Saturday’s and some Sunday’s. One of them has told me that it’s stressful on his present marriage and that he’s already been divorced once. The other guy works with his wife and their children are in college…

I told them that I’ll give 100% while I’m at work, and will occasionally work over in times of need, but my family comes first...and my employer understands.

A priest can give 100% to his parish and not have to worry about neglecting his family, but in reality, his family is his parish, so he’s giving 100% to his family. If a priest chooses to live in the slums of Harlem, he can, for he has no wife to protest or kids to worry about raising in that area.

We must remember again that this Obligatory Celibacy is a matter of Hypocrisy because we know huge amount of sex scandals throughout the history, throughout the world even today.

And here's the root of Eliyahu's problem with celibacy...

Well, here's some information for you...the Christian Science Monitor recently did a survey, interesting enough the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America were found to have occurred in Protestant churches. There were 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year...that's roughly 70 cases a week in Protestant Churches...where the clergy were married. So if your fixation with the RCC is to stop the abuse before us, and prohibiting it from ever happening, then the CSM poll proves is that marriage is no insurance policy.

Therefore, the RCC, sexual-abuses, weren't caused by celibacy, but by the lack of celibacy...And it says nothing about the Church itself, the RCC priest’s are just following Christ's example who Himself was celibate and as was Paul.

Source

Hope this helps...
-

 

[Eliyahu]

I’m sorry Eliyahu, but there’s no weeping here.

Welcome to this issue:wavey:

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy3, 2-5 leads to at lest one problem. If the husband of one wife really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way would mean that he had to have children (plural). Childless husbands (or even fathers with one child, since again, Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

A typical problem with the way of Bible interpretation by RCC. Have I ever said that Bishop must marry or must have children?
My reference was the proof that Bishops COULD ( not must) marry, could have children.
Roman church disallows it, right? I hope you will be honest this time.

Or how about those whose wife dies or children die…are they disqualified?

No problem, Paul was like that. I explained this above.

Fact is Eliyahu, Paul’s point is that the bishop be the husband of one wife, not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Moreover, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married). Do you understand what Paul is saying and how you’re twisting the Word of God to fit your agenda?

As long as the Bishop has one wife, he can still remain in the post of Bishop, right? Say Yes or No, please.

In fact Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, makes a pretty case for celibacy, which he concludes in verse 38, that he who marries does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Once again, we turn to the words of Christ, whom you seem to ignore, that Christ plainly states in Matthew 19:11-12, that those who renounce marriage have done so for the sake of the kingdom.

Yes, I don't deny these verses. Celibacy is superior to marriage, as long as it is pure without sexual misconducts, fornication, adultery, but the facts and the history tell us that RCC had many problems with sexual misconducts and fornications. This is why Paul advised Timothy and Titus to ordain the godly men for the overseers. If anyone could be clibate, he can be a overseer, but must not be a hypocrite committing hidden sexual sins.

I’m married and am the father of 3 kids and work full time…may family comes first, job second…I can’t dedicate 100% to my job and 100% to my family. Something has to give. There’s two guys I work with who are at work from 6am to 7 or 8pm at night and work most Saturday’s and some Sunday’s. One of them has told me that it’s stressful on his present marriage and that he’s already been divorced once. The other guy works with his wife and their children are in college…

I told them that I’ll give 100% while I’m at work, and will occasionally work over in times of need, but my family comes first...and my employer understands.

A priest can give 100% to his parish and not have to worry about neglecting his family, but in reality, his family is his parish, so he’s giving 100% to his family. If a priest chooses to live in the slums of Harlem, he can, for he has no wife to protest or kids to worry about raising in that area.

That's why Mono-Pastoral system has a lot of problem. You try to resolve one problem by disobeying the 2 commandments. by Celibacy and Mono-Pastoral system.

And here's the root of Eliyahu's problem with celibacy...

Well, here's some information for you...the Christian Science Monitor recently did a survey, interesting enough the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America were found to have occurred in Protestant churches. There were 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year...that's roughly 70 cases a week in Protestant Churches...where the clergy were married. So if your fixation with the RCC is to stop the abuse before us, and prohibiting it from ever happening, then the CSM poll proves is that marriage is no insurance policy.

I don't condone Protestants either. The True churches are rather different from Protestant church as they are " Reformed Catholic" such as Presbyterian, Lutheran etc. I have not heard about the bankruptcy of any Protestant church group, but heard that several Catholic diocese were bankrupted and many of RCC churches are in the law suits.

Therefore, the RCC, sexual-abuses, weren't caused by celibacy, but by the lack of celibacy...And it says nothing about the Church itself, the RCC priest’s are just following Christ's example who Himself was celibate and as was Paul.

Source

Hope this helps...
-

You try to teach the Holy Spirit who wrote the Bible and try to improve the Bible.

You must open up your eyes to see the difference between Biblical Church in NT and RCC for this case as I already point out the problems with many other practices.

Can you not see the difference between the Biblical Church and RCC?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Can you not see the difference between the Biblical Church and RCC?

What I see is Eliyahu determining what is and isn't a "Biblical Church".
-

 

[DHK]

Well, here's some information for you...the Christian Science Monitor recently did a survey, interesting enough the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America were found to have occurred in Protestant churches. There were 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year...that's roughly 70 cases a week in Protestant Churches...where the clergy were married. So if your fixation with the RCC is to stop the abuse before us, and prohibiting it from ever happening, then the CSM poll proves is that marriage is no insurance policy.

Therefore, the RCC, sexual-abuses, weren't caused by celibacy, but by the lack of celibacy...And it says nothing about the Church itself, the RCC priest’s are just following Christ's example who Himself was celibate and as was Paul.

Source

Hope this helps...
-

You misconstrue facts.
Any sexual misconduct sin in a Baptist church is quickly dealt with by the congregation of that church, and the member/pastor is disciplined to the letter of the law. It is not simply the law of the church, but civil or criminial law, that is involved. The culprit is turned over to the police and charged, if charges are warranted. Even when pedophilia is commited in the RCC, this horrible act is just covered up, and the offending priest is simply moved to another parish. The sin is never dealt with in a just way, and justice is never meted out.
In a Baptist church, the very act of immorality, and act of immorality disqualifies him from being a pastor for the rest of his life.
Obviously your facts are very skewed.
Baptists are not protestants.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You misconstrue facts.

DHK, for your information, since obviously you haven’t been following allow with the class and rather looking out the window daydreaming; we’re talking about celibacy in regards to sexual misconduct. Which I’ve presented to the class, that celibacy obviously isn’t the problem. We’re not on the other hand engaged in “how” the RCC handles sex abuse cases.

Baptists are not protestants.

Say's who? Baptist?
-

 

[DHK]

DHK, for your information, since obviously you haven’t been following allow with the class and rather looking out the window daydreaming; we’re talking about celibacy in regards to sexual misconduct. Which I’ve presented to the class, that celibacy obviously isn’t the problem. We’re not on the other hand engaged in “how” the RCC handles sex abuse cases.

To take info by one group in order to misalign another group using misconstrued statistics is wrong, and needs to be pointed out, whether that is the topic or not. It is unethical.

Say's who? Baptist?-

You show a lack of knowledge both in general church history and especially in Baptist history. If you were honest about the history of the RCC you would admit that the RCC didn't start until the time of Constantine when he made so-called Christianity a state-religion. That is when Catholicism began or had its roots--in the fourth century. Constantine paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism, and so the RCC stands today.
The fact also remains true that there have been pockets of believers throughout every generation that have protested against the abominations of this pagan monstrosity known as the RCC, long before the Reformation ever started. Whether called Waldenses or by some other name, they have held to beleifs similar to Baptists. God has never left himself without a witness. In every age there have been true born again witnesses testifying to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. These peoples have always been in opposition to the heresies of the RCC.

 

[Eliyahu]

What I see is Eliyahu determining what is and isn't a "Biblical Church".
-

I hope you could read what I mentioned as the teachings of Bible.
The more you reject them, the more you reveal your own disobedience and stubbornness only.

Compare here again! If you have any difficulty in reading this, ask someone near there who can interpret for you.



1. The Biblical church described by Paul, in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.

1) Married man could be ordained as Bishop ( =Elder=Overseer)

2) Man can be a single when he is ordained as a Bishop( =Overseer or Elder) but when he is married, he can still remain as a Bishop( Overseer) or Elder.

3) Bishop( Overseer) or Elder can have children, and he must nurture and educated them as godly men.

Read the followings:

1 Tim 3: 2 and 4
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

Titus 1:6

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.


2. Roman Catholic Church

1) Married man cannot be ordained as a priest or bishop

2) If a priest is married, he must quit the post.

3) Priest cannot have children



Could you not see the difference yet?

The word " Biblical Church" or " The Church which the Bible teach us" doesn't matter!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

To take info by one group in order to misalign another group using misconstrued statistics is wrong, and needs to be pointed out, whether that is the topic or not. It is unethical.

Again, the article linked says nothing about prosecuting offenders, either Protestant or Catholic. The article linked makes the claim that celibacy isn’t the cause of sexual abuse as the Protestant married clergy has proven.

You’re making an issue of prosecuting offenders, is you little way of making a below the belt jab and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You show a lack of knowledge both in general church history and especially in Baptist history.

Do you obviously believe that as a former fundamentalist, that I wasn’t taught Baptist History? Come on DHK, I’ve sat in Bible studies led by Seminary professors as that of Dr. Strouse from Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Newington, Connecticut and others that presented the Baptist line of Churches from the times of Christ. I have a bookshelf full of Baptist History thesis from seminarians and book after book of Baptist History, including the Trail of Blood.

I also decided to broaden my research, b/c what I was being taught just didn’t seem to add up. So I bought other books, such as Baptist Secessionism: A Critical Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick or The Baptist heritage by Leon McBeth who is a Professor of Church History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; both books were recommended by Baptist pastors I talked with, when I decided to leave fundamentalism

In any event, although there were certain sects in ancient and medieval times that sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptist, when judged by today’s standards now acknowledged as Baptistic, not one merits recognition as a Baptist Church.

If you were honest about the history of the RCC you would admit that the RCC didn't start until the time of Constantine when he made so-called Christianity a state-religion.

Please, I almost thought I was reading my copy of A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. I’ll give you that Constantine legalized Christianity after a vision he had during battle, but that’s hardly the birth of Roman Catholicism. I take it you have not read early Church History? It’s a shame, since you say you were Catholic for 20 plus years.

I would recommend Early Christian Writings what we have here are the Apostolic Church Fathers who were disciples of and studied at the very feet of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. You won’t find any Baptistic theology here. I would also recommend The History of the Church by Eusebius, again no mention of anything resembling the Baptist Church.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

I think Agnus is denying what was entirely admitted by Pope and RCC, or what was at least partially admitted by RCC.

1) Pope declared Celibacy of the Priests are Obligatory
Agnus claims that Celibacy is voluntary and free.
Who is right between INFALLIBLE Pope and this Agnus?

2) Many people links the sexual misconducts of RCC priests with the Obligatory Celibacy system. Even though such misconducts will still be found even if they allow the marriage, it is widely believed that Marriage will reduce the Fornication problems in RCC greatly. This is admitted at least partially by RCC group.

However, Agnus strongly claim that the Compulsory Celibacy system of RCc has nothing to do with Sex scandals etc of RCC.

But the Bible says this:
1 Cor 7:
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband


Therefore I would conclude that Agnus is working very hard to prove that the BIBLE IS WRONG! and RCC system is better than what Bible teaches!

 

[Eliyahu]

As for the history of Baptists, read this:

[FONT=&#48148]The writings of both Augustine and Optatus - both strong opponents of the Donatists - disprove this charge. Both writers charge that the Donatists insisted on rebaptism of those who came to them from the "established" churches, and further insisted on baptism of believers only by total immersion. The Council of Milevi in 416 A.D. passed the following edict against the Donatists: "Whosoever denies that newly-born infants are to be baptized...let him be accursed." This edict proves that the Donatists denied the practice of infant baptism[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]http://www.beaconmbc.com/In Defense of, Biblical, Historical, Christianity.htm[/FONT]



[FONT=&#48148]Montanists performed the believers' baptism by immersion only, but the above council decree tells us at least there were Re-Baptizers before 5 century AD.[/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148]Check the Milevi Council![/FONT]

 

[Agnus_Dei]

1) Pope declared Celibacy of the Priests are Obligatory
Agnus claims that Celibacy is voluntary and free.
Who is right between INFALLIBLE Pope and this Agnus?

Ho hum, the Pope is considered ‘infallible’ when speaking ex cathedra and that’s only in regards to faith and morals. Once again Priestly Celibacy is a practice not dogma, this practice can change.

Yes, if a Catholic wants to pastor a Church he will be required to practice celibacy. The individual knows this prior to him entering the priesthood and does so voluntarily, willingly and freely, as Christ in Matthew sates for the sake of the kingdom.

2) Many people links the sexual misconducts of RCC priests with the Obligatory Celibacy system. Even though such misconducts will still be found even if they allow the marriage, it is widely believed that Marriage will reduce the Fornication problems in RCC greatly. This is admitted at least partially by RCC group.

However, Agnus strongly claim that the Compulsory Celibacy system of RCc has nothing to do with Sex scandals etc of RCC.

The problem is lack of celibacy, not celibacy itself. Again my CSM link proves that Celibacy isn’t the issue in regards to sex scandals. Therefore 1 Corinthians 7:2, would apply here. The priest should resign and marry; again this is a lack of celibacy issue. Do you comprehend?

Therefore I would conclude that Agnus is working very hard to prove that the BIBLE IS WRONG! and RCC system is better than what Bible teaches!

No one really cares what YOU conclude Eliyahu. Paul himself says that those that remain unmarried will do better than those that marry (1 Cor 7:38). Paul also says that unmarried men are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife and his interests are divided (1 Cor 7:27-34).

Therefore, I conclude that per Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that the RCC is doing exactly what the Bible declares and therefore practices celibacy as a result of Paul’s teaching.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Ho hum, the Pope is considered ‘infallible’ when speaking ex cathedra and that’s only in regards to faith and morals. Once again Priestly Celibacy is a practice not dogma, this practice can change.

So, you mean Mr. Ratzinger can be wrong in this matter, but you may be correct, and you believe the policy can be changed, right?

Yes, if a Catholic wants to pastor a Church he will be required to practice celibacy.

The Bible doesn't ask it! It is your law and the rule of RCC over Bible.

The individual knows this prior to him entering the priesthood and does so voluntarily, willingly and freely, as Christ in Matthew sates for the sake of the kingdom.

If anyone doesn't volunteer the celibacy, he is disqualified for RCC priest, while Bible doesn't require it, right?

The priest should resign and marry;

Bible doesn't require Resignation from any post, for the marriage. Your religion is different from Bible teaching.

Paul himself says that those that remain unmarried will do better than those that marry (1 Cor 7:38). Paul also says that unmarried men are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife and his interests are divided (1 Cor 7:27-34).

However, he never connected the celibacy with the priesthood or any other post. Did he forget about it when he said " Husband of one wife" ?

Therefore, I conclude that per Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that the RCC is doing exactly what the Bible declares and therefore practices celibacy as a result of Paul’s teaching.
-

No, Sir, RCC is performing the practices which were not taught in the Bible, RCC is performing the practices of pagan religion in Babylon which used to have their priests celibate so that they may have sex with multitudes of women.
The reality is exactly the same as that, when we see so many sex scandals.

1 Cor 7 applies to all the believers, not specifically to the priests or Overseers or Bishops. RCC misunderstood about it.

You are trying very hard to prove that your religion is different from Christianity described in the Bible. I showed you the Bible, 1 Timothy 3:2-5, Titus 1:5-6 where Bible teaches us that the Elders, Bishops, Overseers may have a wife, and should educate the children properly.

Indeed your religion is opposite to the Chrisitanity in many ways.
Don't you think it was the reason why RCC killed so many Christians by condemning them as Heretics?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It is your law...

Now, how is priestly celibacy MY LAW?

You are trying very hard to prove that your religion is different from Christianity described in the Bible. I showed you the Bible, 1 Timothy 3:2-5, Titus 1:5-6 where Bible teaches us that the Elders, Bishops, Overseers may have a wife, and should educate the children properly.

The point of Paul's teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (see 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule ("to be a bishop you must be married") and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

No, Sir, RCC is performing the practices which were not taught in the Bible,

In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place' (Jer. 16:1-2).

Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).

In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.

RCC is performing the practices of pagan religion in Babylon...

Please…what a typical response…now, where have I heard this before…
-

 

[mes228]

Baptist

The sex issue in churches is pretty wide. Surely the RCC has had a problem. They have faced up to it, as awful as it is, and have pretty much tried to make it right. Even though it has cost them millions of dollars. Could they have done better, yes. Could they have done worse? Yes, they could have done much, much worse! What they have done has taken great courage and fortitude. But the other side of the coin is that many Protestant denominations do not tabulate the problem as they are "Independent". In the county's around this area there have been at least 4-6 sexual misconduct cases in the last year or so. With a combination of Pastors and Youth Ministers, all were Baptist. But no ones tabulating or keeping count. I know of no Catholic indiscretions locally. It's my understanding that overall Catholic Priest have about a 2-3% rate of sexual misconduct. The latest survey on Protestants (that I've read - about a year ago) shows they have a rate of about 18% (if memory serves me right). But these surveys are blind and it is known that a substantial percentage will not answer truthfully, no matter how the survey is conducted. When this "known" percentage is added it soars to well over 30% have had affairs/sexual misconduct in their careers as Ministers (don't trust this as it's from memory). I personally believe this is very, very low. I suspect that 80-90% of Ministers have affairs during their lives as Pastors. I would not be surprised to find it near 100%. Sex is a human weakness not confined to Catholics or men in prison. I believe that if you look into it you would find that pornography is the number one problem with Baptist Ministers addressed in counseling sessions. Also
if you look at the percent of Catholic Priest that actually "penetrated" someone it is absolutely miniscule. Most were fondling cases. I don't wish to condone or justify any sexual misconduct but it's a red herring, or the pot calling the kettle black, to limit sex to Catholics. Remember, I don't agree with celibacy and could not choose it.

 

[mes228]

Sex

I did a quick Google and found an article by "Kirby Anderson" entitled "Adultery". He addreses sex among Protestant Ministers and layman. He gives the following statistics.

1. "Newsweek" survey shows 30% of Protestant Ministers have had sex with women other than their wives.

2. "Journal of Pastoral Care", reported that 14% of Southern Baptist Ministers reported inappropriate sexual behaviour for a Minister. Also 70 % reported counseling women that have had affairs with their ministers.

3. "Christianity Today" surveyed 1000 subscribers who were not Pastors and found that 45% had had inappropriate sex and over 23% had "extra marital" intercourse.

I did not wish to trust my memory. The point I wish to make is that it's not just Catholic Priest fooling around inappropriatly. It's humans "sinning".

 

[Eliyahu]

Now, how is priestly celibacy MY LAW?

Because you said so. Read your own post!

The point of Paul's teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (see 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule ("to be a bishop you must be married") and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

You don't comprehend the point again. Please be smart! Again and again, I told you this: Paul didn't address the celibacy issue to the Office, but as a whole, all believers may pursue the celibacy, without limitation to the Priesthood or Bishops. There is no connection between Celibacy and Office at all in the Bible. Roman Religion is different from Christianity in this matter very clearly. I told you that Christian religion allows the Bishops to remain in the post after the marriage, which is not allowed by RCC. Do you understand? Otherwise you are very much blinded. 1 Cor 7 doesn't specify the celibacy to the priest, why do you limit it only to the priest?

In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place' (Jer. 16:1-2).

Yes, at the time when Israel was about to perish soon in a few years.

Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).

Yes, even in NT Paul said such too.

ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

However, the Bible never connected the Office with the Celibacy in NT churches.

In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.

Please…what a typical response…now, where have I heard this before…
-

Are you living in OT era now? Do you know that our Great High Priest finished all the sacrifice Once For All?

Yah, that's why Roman Religion finds no similarity in NT churches but maybe in Babylonian Paganism. Jesus finished all the sacrifice Once For All and therefore we need no more sacrifice, don't you know this?

Read here:
Heb 10:
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Do you think you still need the sacrifice, and therefore your priests should be celibate, right?

Your Religion, the Roman Religion is totally different from Christianity, Sadly.