Catholicism and the Bible

[Idolater]

Per Rome's own declaration it cannot be biblical:

Council of Trent Session 7, 1547
Canon 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.

Denying justification by faith alone places Rome outside the camp.

Use you hermeneutics, and examine the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' on this matter. There's a good index. It's not exhaustive, but you can use the following copied-and-pasted into a search engine to find where any word might be hiding in there. Paste the below into the search box, hit the space bar, and enter in any word you want to find.

site:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism word1 word2 etc.

 

[turbosixx]

Paul mentions some qualifications that authentic pastors should possess, to Timothy or Titus (maybe to both).

Paul does state the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In 1 Tim. 3 he lists the qualifications of both pastors and deacons. Here are the ones for pastor in 1 Timothy.
1 Tim. 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

In both letters Paul states one of the qualifications as "husband of one wife". In Timothy he explains why, He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

I'm curious how the RCC gets around this. The qualifications Paul gives disqualify all of the RCC pastors because of the vow of celibacy. Could you please explain your understanding on this.

 

[Idolater]

Paul does state the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In 1 Tim. 3 he lists the qualifications of both pastors and deacons. Here are the ones for pastor in 1 Timothy.
1 Tim. 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

In both letters Paul states one of the qualifications as "husband of one wife". In Timothy he explains why, He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

I'm curious how the RCC gets around this. The qualifications Paul gives disqualify all of the RCC pastors because of the vow of celibacy. Could you please explain your understanding on this.

Because 'of one wife' is opposed to a husband of 'more than one' wife. iow polygamists are disqualified, even if civil law permits polygamy, a polygamist can't be a valid authentic pastor. That is my understanding.

 

[turbosixx]

Because 'of one wife' is opposed to a husband of 'more than one' wife. iow polygamists are disqualified, even if civil law permits polygamy, a polygamist can't be a valid authentic pastor. That is my understanding.

I agree one wife and not many but he has to have a wife. Paul says he needs to manage his household well and have believing submissive children. If he doesn't have a wife he cannot fulfill this qualification.
1 Tim. 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

A celibate man is not biblically qualified.

 

[Idolater]

I agree one wife and not many but he has to have a wife. Paul says he needs to manage his household well and have believing submissive children. If he doesn't have a wife he cannot fulfill this qualification.
1 Tim. 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

A celibate man is not biblically qualified.

Do you think that Paul was an elder?

 

[turbosixx]

Do you think that Paul was an elder?

No. Paul does not meet the qualifications and I know of no scripture that indicates he was. Peter was, scripture tells us, and we know he was married. it's obvious Peter met the qualifications.

If you know of a scripture that indicates Paul was an elder, I would be glad to read over it.

 

[Idolater]

No. Paul does not meet the qualifications and I know of no scripture that indicates he was. Peter was, scripture tells us, and we know he was married. it's obvious Peter met the qualifications.

If you know of a scripture that indicates Paul was an elder, I would be glad to read over it.

Did Peter have children? I don't think he did.

 

[turbosixx]

Did Peter have children? I don't think he did.

I prefer not to deal in the realm of speculation. Especially when trying to understand truth. Paul's writings are the commandments of Christ. Paul gives us the qualifications of an elder, twice.

God is not the author of confusion. If those are not the qualifications, then why did God see fit to give them to us?

As I have told others, I'm on here to have my thinking challenged and to challenge the thinking of others.

 

[glorydaz]

The Church isn't led by one man now. The pope's primary duty is to ensure that all the other bishops are teaching authentic Apostolic doctrine in matters of faith and morals, he is a living test of orthodoxy, but more importantly, his office, Peter's Roman pastorate, is the institutional test for orthodoxy. This office is tasked with ensuring that all bishops all teach only Apostolic doctrine, and nothing else, as infallible and authoritative Christian teaching.

Each diocesan bishop is responsible to teach authentic Christian doctrine, and to administrate his diocese, and he does this through his assistants, some auxiliary bishops, and many parish priests. And they are all to teach the same thing.

I only saw the priest. What the priest said went. But, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church...not the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Idolater]

I prefer not to deal in the realm of speculation.

"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

I just want to know why this is true for everybody else but not pastors. There must be a logical explanation for why Paul would write this here, himself being a celibate bachelor, and Christ Jesus was celibate, and all the other Apostles besides Peter were also single men.

Especially when trying to understand truth.

You can speculate a thing, to think it through, and see if maybe it just fails on its own logic.

Paul's writings are the commandments of Christ.

Properly understood, yes. Every word of the New Testament is Apostolic, every jot and tittle.

Paul gives us the qualifications of an elder, twice.

OK, he gives them to Timothy, and to Titus. This instruction to two bishops. Maybe in Ephesus and on Crete, there were no single men, so Paul instructed them to work with what God provided, and that was married men, so Paul told them to select 'one-woman' men (literally what "the Greek" says), and check that their kids aren't wonton idiots.

Today there are many men taking vows of celibacy for a life of a pastor. In the Catholic Church priests are all celibate and single with few exceptions. Orthodox churches permit married priests, but not bishops. And yes, that means that when a married priest is ordained a bishop in the Orthodox churches, that he and his wife go their separate ways. Their wives become nuns, when married Orthodox priests are ordained bishops.

God is not the author of confusion. If those are not the qualifications, then why did God see fit to give them to us?

You're begging the question that what Paul wrote to Titus and Timothy is normative for all time and in all locales for the whole Church.

In broad strokes, if the Church couldn't 'afford' celibate bishops in the very beginning, because there was no 'supply' of celibate men available for ordination, then it would explain why Paul doesn't insist upon celibate bishops. Because otherwise why would he write, "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

As I have told others, I'm on here to have my thinking challenged and to challenge the thinking of others.

You're also here for passive aggression, in case you're unaware of that. Most people are. And that was a 'double entendre.'

 

[Idolater]

I only saw the priest. What the priest said went. But, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church...not the Lord Jesus Christ.

An awful lot changed 'on the ground' after Vatican II.

 

[glorydaz]

An awful lot changed 'on the ground' after Vatican II.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed for the better.

The Gospel is still not preached in the Catholic Church.

 

[Idolater]

Unfortunately, nothing has changed for the better.

The Gospel is still not preached in the Catholic Church.

Christ's Resurrection is preached every Mass, His Passion too. I take His Resurrection to be the core of the Gospel, and its one sentence summary; 'He is risen.' I take it to be the sine qua non, like Paul 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV.

 

[glorydaz]

Christ's Resurrection is preached every Mass, His Passion too. I take His Resurrection to be the core of the Gospel, and its one sentence summary; 'He is risen.' I take it to be the sine qua non, like Paul 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV.

That one sentence summary is not the Gospel. The death, burial, and the resurrection have an all encompassing message. That of being justified by faith. I don't see that preached in the Catholic Church.

1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Acts 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

Or has that changed, too? Aren't there hoops that must be jumped through in order to be forgiven of sins? Confession, baptism, last rites, and what about purgatory? Paul tells us all that believe are justified from ALL THINGS.

 

[turbosixx]

"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

I just want to know why this is true for everybody else but not pastors.

It’s true for everyone else because God has given us the qualifications for the appointment of elders. Also see comment below.

There must be a logical explanation for why Paul would write this here, himself being a celibate bachelor, and Christ Jesus was celibate, and all the other Apostles besides Peter were also single men.

I suggest why he says it here is in the context just a few verses up.
25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
It’s not a command from Christ but just advice from Paul because of the present distress.

OK, he gives them to Timothy, and to Titus. This instruction to two bishops.

The bible was not written to us but it is written for us. In the first century God’s word was revealed in parts over years to different men. One thing might be revealed to Paul and another Peter but it’s all scripture and all applies to the church and each part is in harmony with the whole.

Today there are many men taking vows of celibacy for a life of a pastor

Do any inspired writers tell us about the vow of celibacy?

You're begging the question that what Paul wrote to Titus and Timothy is normative for all time and in all locales for the whole Church.

Yes, it applies today. There is no reason why it can’t apply and be followed today. That is the qualifications we use because it’s what God has commanded in his inspired word.

In broad strokes, if the Church couldn't 'afford' celibate bishops in the very beginning, because there was no 'supply' of celibate men available for ordination, then it would explain why Paul doesn't insist upon celibate bishops.

I suggest look at the context. Paul explains why a pastor/bishop/elder is required to be married.
4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
It’s not because they couldn’t find any single men but how a man manages his house determines if he can manage God's church.

Also you said that when a married priest is ordained he must separate from his wife. Couldn’t Paul have required the same thing then?

You're also here for passive aggression, in case you're unaware of that. Most people are. And that was a 'double entendre.'

My wife says I can be. You might be right but I really am trying to defend what I understand to be truth by trying to see through others viewpoints. Even Paul was wrong at one time.

 

[Idolater]

It’s true for everyone else because God has given us the qualifications for the appointment of elders. Also see comment below.


I suggest why he says it here is in the context just a few verses up.
25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
It’s not a command from Christ but just advice from Paul because of the present distress.

But so now you have Paul teaching that if you want to be a bishop, then you should seek a wife, which---doesn't it?---invalidates 1st Timothy 3:1 KJV. If you want to be a bishop, then you should want a wife, but he says, "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."

The bible was not written to us but it is written for us. In the first century God’s word was revealed in parts over years to different men. One thing might be revealed to Paul and another Peter but it’s all scripture and all applies to the church and each part is in harmony with the whole.

I believe that everything the Apostles taught is the Word of God. Many things they taught were written down and became Scripture, and there were many things that are not recorded in the New Testament also, such as their explicit teaching that abortion is grave matter. This was one of the reasons that bishops were so important, because they were instructed by the Apostles directly, and were taught many things, not only those things that appear in the New Testament.

Do any inspired writers tell us about the vow of celibacy?

Not wrt the pastorate, that I'm aware of. But there is Matthew 19:12 KJV, "there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake," which may bear on this.

Yes, it applies today. There is no reason why it can’t apply and be followed today.

I agree that there's no reason why it can't apply today. But as to whether it applies today, that's up to the bishops to decide, based on their knowledge of the Apostles' full witness. The Church has long considered celibate pastors to be an ideal, and imposed the requirement many centuries ago. It is a discipline, that can be changed. They might change this Church discipline soon, the matter's been recently suggested and studied.

That is the qualifications we use because it’s what God has commanded in his inspired word.

Again, Paul was instructing two bishops. God didn't command to you and to me about this, He commanded two bishops about it. The responsibility is the bishops.'

I suggest look at the context. Paul explains why a pastor/bishop/elder is required to be married.
4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
It’s not because they couldn’t find any single men but how a man manages his house determines if he can manage God's church.

I get your point, which is why I asked you earlier about Peter, who didn't have any children, yet you admit that he was an 'elder,' while none of the other Apostles were.

And also, as I've also mentioned, celibate priests work as pastors for many years, actually 'managing' a parish church. Hypothetically, would you think that observing how a man manages his family would be a better judge of how a pastor will 'manage' the Church, or observing how he actually 'manages' a church?

Also you said that when a married priest is ordained he must separate from his wife.

In Orthodoxy (not Catholicism due to almost every priest already being celibate and single), if a married priest is consecrated a bishop, then he separates from his wife, and she becomes a nun.

Couldn’t Paul have required the same thing then?

Paul could have done lots of things.

My wife says I can be. You might be right but I really am trying to defend what I understand to be truth by trying to see through others viewpoints. Even Paul was wrong at one time.

You show a lot of grace.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm curious how the RCC gets around this. The qualifications Paul gives disqualify all of the RCC pastors because of the vow of celibacy. Could you please explain your understanding on this.

Mat 8:14 KJV And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.​

 

[Idolater]

That one sentence summary is not the Gospel.

I think it is. When I take a few giant steps back, and ask myself what the best 'Good News' is in the whole of history, my answer is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. It so happens that Paul writes that believing in His Resurrection constitutes saving faith (Ro10:9KJV), which must mean that it's tantamount to believing the Gospel, and he even in another place writes that His Resurrection is the 'sine qua non' of the Christian faith. The Catholic Church calls His Resurrection the 'central' and 'crowning' truth of Christianity.

The death, burial, and the resurrection have an all encompassing message.

I sum up the Gospel with 'He is risen' (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV), but it's not the whole Gospel completely fleshed out. That'd be the whole Word of God, which covers every angle, and is the 'all encompassing message.'

That of being justified by faith. I don't see that preached in the Catholic Church.

You have to ply your hermeneutics to the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.' There is some way that the Church is justified in teaching that non-Catholic believers in Christ are bona fide Christians, and are saved. That is justification by faith alone, and nothing else.

1 Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;​

​

"4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Acts 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

Or has that changed, too? Aren't there hoops that must be jumped through in order to be forgiven of sins?

No. Just faith.

Confession, baptism, last rites, and what about purgatory?

Baptism is commanded by Christ, and is mentioned by Paul numerous times in Scripture, who also baptized many people himself. Confession is when you break perfect union with the Church through the commission of grave sins, you reconcile with the Church through confessing your sins to an authentic Church pastor, who represents the Church in the matter, to reconcile you back to full communion. Purgatory is purification of all temporal penalties we've earned for our deeds done in the body, before entering the eternal kingdom, and I personally don't have any problem with this teaching. Purgatory means you are saved, nobody in purgatory is not saved, everyone in purgatory will live forever in the eternal kingdom. And, what do you have against last rites?

Paul tells us all that believe are justified from ALL THINGS.

And that can't mean the temporal penalties for sins, because we all endure them in this life, unless we are forgiven our trespasses, in the temporal sense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But so now you have Paul teaching that if you want to be a bishop, then you should seek a wife, which---doesn't it?---invalidates 1st Timothy 3:1 KJV.

It does not.

"If you're married, stay married. If you're divorced, stay divorced. However, it's better to marry than to burn with passion."

Using the priests in the news lately as an example, they should have married instead of burning with passion, for now they're at risk of burning forever.

If you want to be a bishop, then you should want a wife, but he says, "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."

Which neither means nor implies that one should "loose yourself from your wife." :doh:

I believe that everything the Apostles taught is the Word of God. Many things they taught were written down and became Scripture, and there were many things that are not recorded in the New Testament also, such as their explicit teaching that abortion is grave matter.

Which (speaking of abortion), again, would have been condemned as murder, which was taught prior to them.

This was one of the reasons that bishops were so important, because they were instructed by the Apostles directly, and were taught many things, not only those things that appear in the New Testament.
Not wrt the pastorate, that I'm aware of. But there is Matthew 19:12 KJV, "there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake," which may bear on this.

You know what a eunuch is, right? Where does Paul (or anyone, for that matter) ever say to do that to oneself?

Also, that passage is Jesus speaking to the Jews, and at that, it was just after He got done saying this:

And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:4-6&version=NKJV

I agree that there's no reason why it can't apply today. But as to whether it applies today, that's up to the bishops to decide, based on their knowledge of the Apostles' full witness. The Church has long considered celibate pastors to be an ideal, and imposed the requirement many centuries ago. It is a discipline, that can be changed. They might change this Church discipline soon, the matter's been recently suggested and studied.
Again, Paul was instructing two bishops. God didn't command to you and to me about this, He commanded two bishops about it. The responsibility is the bishops.'
I get your point, which is why I asked you earlier about Peter, who didn't have any children,

...that we're aware of...

But he DID have a wife, even though "the Church" doesn't like to admit it, and don't even know where she was buried, even though they know where Peter was buried... :think:

yet you admit that he was an 'elder,' while none of the other Apostles were.

And also, as I've also mentioned, celibate priests work as pastors for many years, actually 'managing' a parish church. Hypothetically, would you think that observing how a man manages his family would be a better judge of how a pastor will 'manage' the Church, or observing how he actually 'manages' a church?
In Orthodoxy (not Catholicism due to almost every priest already being celibate and single), if a married priest is consecrated a bishop, then he separates from his wife, and she becomes a nun.
Paul could have done lots of things.
You show a lot of grace.

I think that a man who cannot manage his own family should not manage the church, which is a bigger family.

Can't manage the small stuff, probably not able to handle the big.

 

[Idolater]

It does not.

"If you're married, stay married. If you're divorced, stay divorced. However, it's better to marry than to burn with passion."

Using the priests in the news lately as an example, they should have married instead of burning with passion, for now they're at risk of burning forever.

Why? Don't you think that Christ died for sexual sins?

And of course what those priests did, and what those bishops did to cover up those crimes and sins, is wickedness. No argument. This is a dark age for the Church.

Which neither means nor implies that one should "loose yourself from your wife." :doh:

'Doh' yourself. I never said or implied that it did. 1st Timothy 3:1 KJV says, "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." And 1st Corinthians 7:27 KJV says, "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." So then desiring to be a bishop is not a 'good work' for single men? For if a single man desires to be a bishop, then he must seek a wife, but he can't seek a wife.

Which (speaking of abortion), again, would have been condemned as murder, which was taught prior to them.

You know what a eunuch is, right? Where does Paul (or anyone, for that matter) ever say to do that to oneself?

That's why I said that it only 'may bear on this.'

Also, that passage is Jesus speaking to the Jews, and at that, it was just after He got done saying this:

And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:4-6&version=NKJV

I don't get your point, unless you're referring to the Orthodox practice of married priests separating from their wives if they become bishops. I'm not Orthodox in body or in theology.

...that we're aware of...

As in all other things.

But he DID have a wife, even though "the Church" doesn't like to admit it

Cite? I haven't seen anything like that. Peter was married.

, and don't even know where she was buried, even though they know where Peter was buried... :think:

:idunno:

I think that a man who cannot manage his own family should not manage the church, which is a bigger family.

I don't disagree with you.

Can't manage the small stuff, probably not able to handle the big.

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." :thumb: