Posted on 03/29/2010 2:17:12 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
>> The “gutsy move” was meant to mirror what you’ve said.
How so? I have not made any generalizations about Catholics or even Catholic priests. I have simply said that the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities.
>> It’s obvious that you just want to goad me (and everyone else that has disagreed with you on this thread) ...
Nonsense. I had several very reasonable conversations in this thread with several individuals that were less sensitive and less prone to throwing around insults than you appear to be.
>> so I’ll just leave you alone.
Much obliged.
SnakeDoc
That’s not an assumption you can support. Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen. If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable because they don’t all contain the same exact facts (some omit certain things, some include things the others don’t) would have their ‘proof’ they are unreliable.
Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom, rabbis of Jesus’ age would be getting married around his age, and why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding? Yet there is no factual evidence in the story AT ALL about it being his wedding, you have to assume a bunch of things based on the LACK of evidence.
Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels. Are we to assume due to lack of evidence she is now dead, or not important anymore? Nobody left prays to Mary, nobody asks Mary to intercede for them in any of the following letters/books of the New Testament. Nobody is saying “Hail Mary’s”.
It doesn’t fly. You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead. Further if we are going to play fast and loose with evidence, who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus? Peter was an “apostle” - one who was a follower of, and taught face to face by Jesus - as soon as he dropped his fishing net and followed Jesus. Who’s to say the wedding at Cana wasn’t Peter’s wedding? The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.
And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married, there was no prohibition on marriage, so whether he got married before or after he was a follower of Jesus makes no difference. He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.
You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization? Just so that we’re clear, it is. You’ve had several reasonable conversations with people you agree with or can share sarcastic comments with. When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests. I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general. The fact that you continue to do so makes me regret saying I was done. I’m not.
“That’s not an assumption you can support.”
Why not?
“Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen.”
Where does scripture say that she was alive? Scripture doesn’t even give her name.
“If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable”
And they would be wrong because they do differ on some of the details, but they are all substantially the same.
“Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom.”
Quite the contrary, they do mention the host. Look, I appreciate you saying this, but you really do need to reread the account. Jesus was a guest at the wedding. Scripture does in fact refer to the host, who was not Christ.
“why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding?”
Because she knows what Jesus is capable of. What’s your explanation for why we hear of Peter’s mother-in-law, and yet his wife is not there to attend to her mother?
“Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels.”
Gee, do you sola scriptura folks even read your bibles?
“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”
Acts 1:12-4.
If you are going to bash Mary, it would help if you actually get your facts right.
“You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead.”
Why not? Is there any evidence in scripture that she is alive?
“who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus?”
Do we have any evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they followed Christ? No. There’s no evidence for it in scripture.
“The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.”
Just as the lack of evidence allows you to assume that she was alive.
“And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married,”
Yes, this is very true.
“there was no prohibition on marriage”
There is a difference between saying that it is permissible for bishops and priests to be married when they are ordained, then to say that those who are ordained are permitted to marry.
“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”
Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.
“The more important difference between the Lutherans and RCC is that the Lutheran churches, when this stuff is discovered, are able to remove their pastors at the church level by the Elders and/or the Congregation.”
I presume you aren’t referring to the ECLA? They call themselves Lutheran. At least the Catholics aren’t blessing sodomy as equal to marriage.
Why should we regard Lutherans as followers of Christ when they explicitly reject Christ’s teachings?
He’s happy? Good for him.
>> You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization?
No, I don’t. It addresses a doctrine, and what I see as a doctrinal problem, not a person or group of people. I have said nothing about all priests, or any particular priest. That there are homosexuals among the priesthood is undeniable ... and that this is a problem is also undeniable.
>> When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests.
The original article made it about homosexual priests.
>> I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general.
I have made no assumptions about any priest or any group of priests.
SnakeDoc
“The doctrine that the Vatican alone is endowed by the Almighty with doctrinal infallibility, so as to make decisions and proclamations on His behalf, would seem to indicate as much.”
I said a citation from the Vatican, not from you. Sorry. I don’t care what you believe the Vatican teaches, I care about what the Vatican actually teaches.
Cite, or stop bothering us with your opinions.
You need a direct citation to recognize the existence of the doctrine of infallibility? Good grief. Its your faith, look it up yourself.
If you deny that the doctrine of infallibility exists in the Catholic church, then your problem isn’t with me ... its with all the multitudes of true-blue Catholics (on this board and elsewhere) that recognize such a doctrine.
SnakeDoc
“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”
Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.
It doesn’t matter. The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc. You are trying to make a condition that is not there. There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader. Given the context, that church leaders can be married, and there is no further clarification following as to WHEN it is permitted and when they no longer can marry, except to say “husband of one wife” - which God’s Word does choose to elaborate on - it’s clear from the context there is no “only before, not after” clause pertaining to when a church leader can get married. Scripture is clear they should be the husband of one wife and makes a point to say that. It does not take the extra step and say they only can marry before being a church leader.
Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.
The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example. It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.
“You need a direct citation to recognize the existence of the doctrine of infallibility? Good grief. Its your faith, look it up yourself.”
FRiend, it’s your assertion. You must prove that the doctrine of infalliability as taught by the Catholic Church corresponds to what you have asserted.
So go ahead, cite the Vatican, if you can. If you can only cite yourself and your opinion, then I have no reason to believe that you have actually taken the time to research what the Catholic church teaches.
Yes, my problem is with you. You’ve distorted what the Catholic church teaches here.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops. As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
Now, where on earth does this presume that the Pope and only the Pope is the exclusive representative of Christ on Earth? He’s not. Nor does the Catechism teach that only those who are Catholic can have the Holy Spirit in them. All that the Catholic church teaches is that the fullness of the Christian faith is with them. Not exclusivity.
>> Now, where on earth does this presume that the Pope and only the Pope is the exclusive representative of Christ on Earth?
“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope.”; “the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful”; “his definitions [...] are justly held irreformable”; “for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit”.
Those are just the citations from the passage you quoted that indicate a “special way” that the “supreme shephard” can make “irreformable” “pronounce[ments]” on behalf of “the Holy Spirit”.
That very passage expresses a special connection (i.e. exclusive) between the pope and the holy spirit so that he may speak on His behalf. So ... there you go.
SnakeDoc
“The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example.”
So, your assertion rests on the fact that there is NO evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they took up their ministry with Christ.
“It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.”
How so? There’s no evidence that they were married before their ministry. You are asserting that they were in fact married, despite the fact that Scripture is silent here. Can you not accept that if you rely on scripture only you have no means to justify yourself?
“The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc.”
Exactly. Thank you. I have been saying that since the beginning. I’m glad you’ve finally come around to my very first post in the thread. Just because Timothy says that a priest may already be a married man, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement.
“There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader.”
Timothy is talking about the eligibility of already-married men. Paul talks about how priests should be celibate. Why is Paul less authoritative in Corinthians than he is in Timothy?
“Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.”
I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?
Where does it say that the Pope is the only representative of God? Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.
Are you denying your previous assertion?
>> Where does it say that the Pope is the only representative of God?
It says the pope alone holds a “special” ability to “make pronounce[ments]” infallibly with the “assistance of the Holy Spirit”. If this ability were not exclusive, it would not be “special”. Do you claim that other persons or religious bodies have such an ability?
>> Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.
I never spoke of the source of Salvation ... though it would be noteworthy to me if you, a Catholic, claimed that Protestant denominations are also members of His church as Biblically referenced. Many Catholics I have had conversations with do not believe this — instead believing that Protestants left Christ’s chuch heretically. However, I am unsure if this is an official church position or just the position of some parishoners ... so would not attribute it to the Catholic heirarchy.
SnakeDoc
I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?
Since when do you read “better” to equal “required”? You are totally distorting and taking things out of context, including this line from Paul.
In that same letter Paul provides the context he is talking about celibacy in.
1Co 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.I say therefore to the unmarried (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP) and widows, It is good for them IF they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better - if you can handle it. Obviously for these people who cannot, it would be better if they were married. But marriage is not a disqualifier for service to God as a church leadership position.
Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.
If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader, because we know from Scripture that statement is FALSE. Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married, and therefore, the bible would not have to specify ‘husband of one wife’ anywhere when explaining the qualifications to be a church leader because none of the church leaders, present or future, would ever possibly be married.
When you take one sentence out of context you can easily create doctrines and traditions that are not true. When you have to be forced to view things in the context they are given, and supported by other areas of Scripture, it’s a different story.
“Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better if you can handle it.”
Exactly. And priests are called to be devoted to God. Read into it whatever you want, but Paul is saying that priests ought to be celibate so that their attentions are not divided.
“Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.”
That’s because he’s referring to two things here.
1, if you are ALREADY MARRIED, you must be the man of one woman. Again, for obvious reasons. If you are unmarried, and plan to be married, you don’t meet this qualification. This is for already married men.
2, he’s very explicit later on, that in his opinion, he believes that celibacy is superior to marriage. He acknowledges that there are others who do not have his calling, but the ideal is for men who can devote themselves entirely to God.
You are hinging your entire argument on one word, rather then on the whole paragraph that Paul devotes to discussing the issue around celibacy. And he says just the opposite that you do, that celibacy is to be preferred.
“If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader.”
Why do you know that to be false? All the requirements say is that if you are married, you must be the husband of one wife. That’s it. It doesn’t say that marriage is required at all. It does say that already married men can be bishops. It does not say that those who wish to get married should become priests, paul says just the opposite.
If you cannot abide by celibacy, get married, have kids. But don’t become a priest like Paul. The unmarried man can be devoted entirely to God. You sincerely believe that celibacy is not the preferred state for priests?
“Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married.”
False. Again, this comes back to the question regarding continence. If an already married man were to become a priest, he is expected to remain continent. This is no different today than it was in the age of apostles.
“It says the pope alone holds a “special” ability to “make pronounce[ments]” infallibly with the “assistance of the Holy Spirit”. If this ability were not exclusive, it would not be “special”. Do you claim that other persons or religious bodies have such an ability?”
Actually, yes. There are prophets with the same ability to make infalliable pronouncements. However only the pope has the ability when speaking ‘ex cathedra’, in the seat of Peter.
>> Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.
I never spoke of the source of Salvation ... though it would be noteworthy to me if you, a Catholic, claimed that Protestant denominations are also members of His church as Biblically referenced. Many Catholics I have had conversations with do not believe this — instead believing that Protestants left Christ’s chuch heretically. However, I am unsure if this is an official church position or just the position of some parishoners ... so would not attribute it to the Catholic heirarchy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.