toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

[Cruciform]

...i.e. if there were other requirements the Holy Spirit would have inspired it to be written down.

Merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola scriptura. Nice try, though.

But if you look into the history of the RCC, you would see that their decision to require priests not to be married was due to money (the church having to support priest's wives and children)... not a scriptural one.

• Go ahead and post your documentary source (author, title, publisher, date) for this brilliant assertion.
• Your claim is simply patented nonsense:

Celibacy & the Priesthood
God's Gift to His Bride: Priestly Celibacy
The Biblical Rationale for Clerical Celibacy​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You saying (see above), is just a way of you saying YOU are right and they are wrong, with no substantiation. In other words, you evade the argument to thump your chest like a gorilla and proclaim victory. Rather intellectually dishonest, and that is meant from a purely debate art, point of view.

The hilarious thing is that I actually need 'substantiation' for the self-evident to sway Catholics. It definitely isn't original, seeing as every Protestant is challenged to such a ridiculous notion.

-Idolatry
-Self-proclaimed authority

Those are biggies. I leave out the smaller things to keep it fair. Saying that I am being intellectually dishonest is a big load. As far as I can tell, that is a property of every single Catholic I have ever come across in my life. Blind devotion often leaves one with stubbed toes.

How does the RCC not live up to it's own charge. Does it fail to meet YOUR standards? That's why some are appointed leaders, and you aren't. Some are the learners, some are the leaders.
:execute:

It fails to evolve with understanding of the Bible. Appointed leaders are nothing but, well, appointed leaders. What really is the significance in that? Because they fit the bias of the Church, that makes them supreme? A 'historic Church' would do well to put accuracy over stubbornness. I see no fear of God in the latter.

In fact, the truest irony, is, if you accept SOLA SCRIPTURA the way protestants today describe it, the Bible says Sola Scriptura is faulted. It's a losing proposition. Tradition is biblical, ignoring it is not.

No, tradition is simply an old interpretation of what is biblical. That is where Catholic argument just, well, fails really.

Yes, it's much more likely that the 10000th person that hears the rumor will be closer to the original comment.

You really have some vitriolic issues.

Says the person who has vitriolic issues, brought on by an establishment that has had supreme vitriolic issues throughout it's entire history. Right.

 

[HisServant]

Merely begs the question in favor of the 16th-century Protestant invention of sola scriptura. Nice try, though.

It doesn't beg the question at all.. it is consistent with the form of Judiasm that was replaced with Christianity.

It's also consistent with Christ's displeasure with the way that the Jewish priests developed their own religion on top of the one given to Moses.

So Christ adhered to what was originally written.. why is that such a crime in the RCC? Other then the fact that it removes power from the church and turns it over to the Holy Spirit and the wonderful variety of ways that he works in mankind.

Personally, I view the reformers quite like I view the Old Testament Prophets.. who came out of the wilderness to put Israel back on the right track.. its a shame that their efforts were met with such avarice and hate.

 

[Cruciform]

It doesn't beg the question at all.. it is consistent with the form of Judiasm that was replaced with Christianity.

Not at all, since the Jews---unlike advocates of sola scriptura---followed sacred oral Tradition as well as the written texts.

It's also consistent with Christ's displeasure with the way that the Jewish priests developed their own religion on top of the one given to Moses.

Unfortunately for your assumptions, oral Apostolic Tradition hardly equates to the apostles "developing their own religion on top of the one given to Jesus Christ." No comparison there whatsoever. :nono:

So Christ adhered to what was originally written.. why is that such a crime in the RCC?

Yet, Christ did not adhere only to what was written, and nor does his historic Church today.

Also, you forgot the rest of my post:

• Go ahead and post your documentary source (author, title, publisher, date) for this brilliant assertion.
• Your claim is simply patented nonsense:

Celibacy & the Priesthood
God's Gift to His Bride: Priestly Celibacy
The Biblical Rationale for Clerical Celibacy​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[HisServant]

Not at all, since the Jews---unlike advocates of sola scriptura---followed sacred oral Tradition as well as the written texts.


Unfortunately for your assumptions, oral Apostolic Tradition hardly equates to the apostles "developing their own religion on top of the one given to Jesus Christ." No comparison there whatsoever. :nono:


Yet, Christ did not adhere only to what was written, and nor does his historic Church today.

Also, you forgot the rest of my post:

• Go ahead and post your documentary source (author, title, publisher, date) for this brilliant assertion.
• Your claim is simply patented nonsense:

Celibacy & the Priesthood
God's Gift to His Bride: Priestly Celibacy
The Biblical Rationale for Clerical Celibacy​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Not interested in reading brainwashed catholic opinion on things... the secular world is way more reliable when it comes to such matters.

When I clicked on the third link the first defense was that of the Eunichs... and I keep thinking of all the harm that would never have happened if priests were required to have their testicles removed.

 

[Cruciform]

Not interested in reading brainwashed catholic opinion on things...

• Yes...much better to stick to brainwashed anti-Catholic opinion on things.
• It's definitely important to make sure to carefully avoid any sources of information that might contradict or disprove your present anti-Catholic assumptions and opinions. An anti-Catholic can't be too careful...

Also, you still haven't answered this:

"Go ahead and post your documentary source (author, title, publisher, date) for this brilliant assertion."​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Vaquero45]

Hmmm, supposing that God is humanized enough to think......

Does God "think" in your worldview? I really am not interested in a "god" that does not think.

 

[bucksplasher]

Does God "think" in your worldview? I really am not interested in a "god" that does not think.

I "think", I believe that God "knows".

tWINs

 

[bybee]

I "think", I believe that God "knows".

tWINs

Amen Brother, agreed!

 

[serpentdove]

[RCC]
-Idolatry
-Self-proclaimed authority

They become their own god. linger: Cain also approached God the wrong way.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell [Gen. 4:4–5].

"Someone may say, “I don’t see anything wrong in the thing Cain did.” In the eleventh verse of his epistle, speaking of apostates in the last days, Jude says, “… They have gone in the way of Cain …” What is the way of Cain? When Cain brought an offering to God, he did not come by faith—he came on his own. And the offering that he brought denied that human nature is evil. God said, “Bring that little blood sacrifice which will point to the Redeemer who is coming into the world. Come on that basis, and don’t come by bringing the works of your own hands.”

Cain’s offering also denied that man was separated from God. He acted like everything was all right. This is what liberalism does today in talking about the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. My friend, things are not all right with us today. We are not born children of God. We have to be born again to be children of God. Man is separated from God. Cain refused to recognize that, and multitudes today refuse to do so.

The third thing that Cain’s offering denied was that man cannot offer works to God—Cain felt he could. Scripture says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). The difference between Cain and Abel was not a character difference at all, but the difference was in the offerings which they brought. These two boys had the same background. They had the same heredity. They had the same environment. There was not that difference between them. Don’t tell me that Cain got his bad disposition from an alcoholic grandfather on his father’s side—he didn’t have a grandfather. And don’t say that Abel got his good disposition from a very fine grandmother on his mother’s side. They just didn’t have grandparents. They had the same heredity and the same environment. The difference was in the offerings.

That offering makes a difference in men today. No Christian takes the position that he is better than anyone else. The thing that makes him a Christian is that he recognizes that he is a sinner like everyone else and that he needs an offering, he needs a sacrifice, and he needs Someone to take his place and to die for him. Paul says of Christ: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood …” (Rom. 3:25). Therefore Paul could further write: “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). That is the picture of multitudes of people today. They are attempting through religion, through joining a church and doing something, to make themselves acceptable to God. God’s righteousness can only come to you—because it must be a perfect righteousness—through Christ’s providing it for you. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). That is, He was raised for our righteousness. He was the One who took our place. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Paul says in Philippians 3:8–9, “… That I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ ….” The righteousness of Cain was his own righteousness. The righteousness of Abel was faith in a sacrifice that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice.

We have seen that Cain and Abel had come together to worship God. These two boys were identical. Some expositors actually believe they were twins—I think that was the position of the late Dr. Harry Rimmer. But I believe they were even closer than twins because of the fact they had no blood stream which reached way back on both sides that might cause a difference. They were the sons of Adam and Eve. However, there is a great divergence between Cain and Abel which is not necessarily a character divergence. One was accepted because of the sacrifice which he brought by faith; the other, Cain, brought his offering without any recognition from God at all."McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-30

 

[IXOYE]

The bible does have very clear requirements for eldership. Unfortunately not a single Roman Catholic Priest meets those requirements (except for anglican married priests that were allowed into the church).

An elder must be a husband of but one wife... it's pretty straight forward. As there is a lot of wisdom that one develops when dealing with ones wife and raising a family that is totally absent from the Roman Catholic Church and it shows.

Ok, Timothy was over the elders.

Timothy was young.

We have no reason to suspect Timothy was married.

I know of no tradition that hints he was married either.

Your elders had leaders over them. Titus, Timothy, Paul are just a few, Barnabas probably was.

You paint a half right, half biased and wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing it on purpose though. We do things we don't mean to all the time.

 

[IXOYE]

But the truthfulness of that 'book' cannot be assumed to be without error.

Since there is a library of all the books before it, you can check the work. At the very least if you found a lie it would be 1000 years old or something.

You can demand for impossible proof just like an atheist who is ticked off at the church does, (not including all atheists here..), but it doesn't eliminate the fact they have much more proof than your silly, "I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU IT MUST BE UNTRUE" position has.

For that matter, I know for a dang fact, you can't exist without a great great great grandfather. Until you prove there was one, you are a figment of the boards collective imagination. Period.

See, proof can get ridiculous, just as you did here. When you question proof out of bigotry, your heart is torn open for the world to see. The moment you stepped out of probable and logical arguments to extreme silliness, you look a fool.

Again.

:nono:

 

[HisServant]

You paint a half right, half biased and wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing it on purpose though. We do things we don't mean to all the time.

I paint the only picture shown in inspired writings. History that determines tradition outside of those inspired writings does not hold any weight.

 

[IXOYE]

Yes in general family men make better pastors but I think the emphasis was not on the whether to have a wife or not but on how many for those who do marry. Actually, the word is litterally to be a "one woman man" which is why some churches disqualify those who have divorced and remarried since they would be a two-women man, even if only one at a time. Never having married I don't think would disqualify based on that word, but nevertheless for a church to make a policy that their leaders can't marry is folly.

Don't you think it's a judgement of the fruit of their comprehension and living ethos? If they livethe faith, they will be of one wife with the kiddos in line. That's for elders.

That isn't for "preachers". It's not for bishops either. Timothy apparently didn't have the same requirements in that arena as the Bishops he was to prepare for service had to face.

 

[IXOYE]

Polygamy was rampant during the times of the Apostles. Limiting an elder to one wife made sure he had the time to devote to working with the flock.

Polygamy was also a public service back then. You were taking care of a woman that wouldn't have been provided for otherwise. Certainly not every time was pure like that, but often that was the case. History is a wonderful thing.

 

[Nihilo]

toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

The Lord Jesus Christ is God Most High.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Everlasting Father.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth.
The Lord Jesus Christ is Love.
The Lord Jesus Christ is Life.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Way.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of Christ.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the King of the Roman Catholic Church and Organization.
The Lord Jesus Christ is most obviously, visibly and perceptibly manifested today as the Roman Catholic Church and Organization.

 

[IXOYE]

For students of appeal to authority..... may I present....

What.. admit that I have been through christian college and seminary and have preached in different countries around the world?... why would I not want to admit that in public? I'd be happy if it applied to the question at hand.

Admitting this is bragging, not answering if you were qualified to teach. You are right, it has nothing to do with the question of if you were an authority to teach. So, since you realize that, why do you bring it up. Oh I forgot to brag. To claim authority via eduction to increase credibility. I'm gonna fall for that, yeah.:hammer:

The fact is that my training has absolutely no bearing on my fitness to preach and teach... and should not be used by anyone to proclaim their fitness to do so.

I don't see where anyone said it did. So this non sequitur is a waste of time. Also, if your training and blah blah blah was errant, then no matter how much you had it would be worthless, right?

Their standing as a teacher is at the mercy of the congregation (ekklesia) continually confirming that they have the Holy Spirits temporary gift of teaching.

Funny, you can't support that one in scripture effectively that I can see. I'm willing to be wrong. Paul certainly taught differently. And Clement showed that in the end of the first century the Church was certainly run different than what you describe above. Sure seems like selective, protestant, assumptive, concluding to me.

So to ask me personally if I am qualified would not be something any 'pastor' would be comfortable with proclaiming of themselves.

Well, we'll agree to agree on this point. But when you sit in a forum to teach something that appears against scripture to more than a few, you've assumed the role of a teacher, and I think the question, while not really fruitful is justifiable. Personally, I'd rather see the issues put on the table, and the scripture to back up the positions. But, Hey, I'm a former researcher, we are funny like that.

Sure, they gathered together. But there is no record of some man made liturgy or other customs which we equate to a 'service' these days. The met in homes.. branched out when they grew. But in the early days there was no concept of what we understand to be a 'church'.. it was an ekklesia.. a calling out be the Holy Spirit.

Liturgy, They were taught to teach the scriptures. To read from them at each meeting. I guess liturgical folks assuming that meant read the whole set of scriptures were just ridiculously obedient, and not free thinkers at all. Isn't it funny that the MOST CONSERVATIVE, are rooted in the more liberal Ecclesial decisions?

The SERVICE however, started in synogogues. I guess you would argue that they weren't "services" when a group of jews gathered in an established building to be taught scripture. Yeah, no biblical elements for services at all. That was the earliest of the earliest church, before the Way even.

Sounds like a Frank Viola fan to me. Disregard relevant histories to make a point he personally prefers.:hammer:

The Church, as you put it, that monitored the elders, etc... were LED BY APPOINTED LEADERS!!!!! They were not independently ran. The leaders could trace their appointments back to apostles as best we can tell from scripture. Then were perpetuated from within the church.

I'm sorry, but your smug posture and appeal to authority isn't a real deterrent for me to avoid getting to the truth of the matters. I don't care if you hold a double doctorate in Theology and Middle eastern History, Truth is truth, and I can't claim to have it, but I can claim to see when someone else is contradicting parts of it I know of.

Ive spent plenty of time on research even wrote my thesis on it (somewhat)... apparently you haven't.

Yeah, I'm a flaming idiot. But I have historical reasons for my idiocy. And they are more consistent than yours.

Anyhow... thanks for butting in and answering a question that was not asked of you.

Just as Paul did to the circumcision group's teachers, to Peter, and John did to the gnostic teachers, yeah, I feel like i'm a criminal to let your "selective history" of truth go unchallenged. Admit it, you just don't like being challenged.

Sniff sniff, waaaaaa

 

[Krsto]

Ok, Timothy was over the elders.

Timothy was young.

We have no reason to suspect Timothy was married.

I know of no tradition that hints he was married either.

Your elders had leaders over them. Titus, Timothy, Paul are just a few, Barnabas probably was.

You paint a half right, half biased and wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing it on purpose though. We do things we don't mean to all the time.

We've been through this before but I'll lay it out again. The only people in the NT that were "over" more than one church were the ones who planted those churches, washed their feet, sacrificed their lives, so to speak, for them, and thus gained enough respect that when they came by and saw things out of order and provided correction the church listened to them and submitted. Also, these same apostles, when they had more churches to care for than they could handle by themselves had assistants to help them, such as Titus, Timothy, Barnabus, etc., who could be sent by the church planter to take care of unfinished business, and were also respected by those churches because they had relations with them or if not the church planter would send a letter of recommendation. These men were not appointed as bishops as you keep errantly proposing, they were Paul's assistants and took care of unfinished business, such as when the people in a particular locale where particularly immature and needed more training to mature into leadership position. This was the case on the island of Crete, which Cretans Paul affirmed popular knowledge that they were liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons. Paul sent his assistant, Titus, to "set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge," (Tit. 1:5) His job was to do as Paul did in every church he planted, which was to raise up an eldership to pastor, oversee (be a "bishop"), and feed, and then he would leave, "commending (them) to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build (them) up, and to give (them) the inheritance among all them that are sanctified." (Acts 20:32) Sometimes that would be 3 months after Paul arrived and planted a church and at most it would be 3 years such as at Ephesus, but with the Cretans he was too busy to stay that long so sent Titus.

To try to justify an episcopalian (heirarchical) church government such as the Catholic Church's is to do an injustice to history as recorded in the bible. There are no "bishops" in the bible if you mean by that someone who was appointed to oversee one church or several and held that position until he was replaced by another. There is no evidence that Titus stayed on at Crete past his appointed duty to raise up elders to take care of their churches. And why would he? His mentor never did.

 

[Krsto]

Don't you think it's a judgement of the fruit of their comprehension and living ethos? If they livethe faith, they will be of one wife with the kiddos in line. That's for elders.

That isn't for "preachers". It's not for bishops either. Timothy apparently didn't have the same requirements in that arena as the Bishops he was to prepare for service had to face.

Being a "one woman man" was a character issue, as with all the requirements for elders. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, etc. must meet those qualifications as well. Paul the apostle, (who wasn't married, btw) called himself an elder so certainly he considered himself to meet his own character requirements for being an elder. Being a zero woman man was just as good if not better than a one woman man, especially for his ministry.

It does make sense that a man who would be traveling a lot and living off the contributions of those they ministered to while on the road would not have a wife and family to care for but that doesn't make sense for resident elders, such as a priest who is not on the road full-time. To require them to be celibate is folly.

 

[IXOYE]

Levitical priests were not appointed to take the message to the people.. they were appointed to SERVE the Lord in the tabernacle.

Ok, then educate me, which priests was it, that went to the tent of meeting, heard the message from God and went back to the people? They had to be cleaned in the laver, then at the altar, to be ritually clean enough to go in. I must be confusing my priesthoods. :noway:

Melchisedek was not a HIGH Priest... he was a priest of God most high.

He didn't wear a blue robe, he wore a royal blue robe.

The whole priesthood was named after him, the Order of Mel.... sure seems like he was the head of it to me.

King of Salem/jerusalem, had authority. DO you propose he was KING and a priest under another man's authority? I understand I took a liberty on the High priest, and used a conclusion from deduction, but you use pedantics. :noway::bang:

Church, as I have said before are not a biblical concept.

And, since you have said it..... it must be so. Would you feel better if instead of claiming it was a church that it was, instead, a synogogue?

Of course the word church does appear in a lot of English translations, but that was due to an order by King James. There is no equivalent in English to the word in used in the original tongue (ekklesia).

We can agree there. Same with Agapao, Sarx, and others.

Once again, the word bishop is of Catholic and Anglican origin and does not appear in the original languages.

Neither does JESUS appear in the original languages. :| I guess he didn't exist either. In fact, his mother named him Joshua, to be really technical to the english version of his original name.

So, again, mr pedantic, using an english word to describe a role of timothy or titus who were over the church in their area, (agreed it was in multiple houses at that point), is offensive to you? Well, isn't that special? They were performing the role, that a bishop is defined as today as doing. Forgive me if I see the real impact to this?

As I said before, the word church and words that distinguished 'offices' in the church were barred from being changed to their original tongue equivalences by order of King James.

As long as the word, is associated to the same functioning role as the original tongues, what friggin difference does it make. They are calling "red", smugaloo not calling "red" green IMPACT IS?

The leaders of the ekklesia operated under the ekklesia's acceptance of their role... i.e. even when an apostle 'appointed' someone to go to a congregation.. the congregation had the last say as to whether to accept them or not.

Substantiation?

We have no support that the clement you are talking about is the same clement Paul was talking about.. it is only an assumption on your part.

That's pretty weak. We have the opinions from people as far back as within 2 generations of it's writing claiming it was. VS a protestant with anti catholic bias 2K years later saying those people were wrong.

You have no proof JESUS raised from the dead either.

How many Pauls where there?.. Johns?.. Marys?

????

And yes, history is a wonderful thing... if you were actually concerned about the facts of history and not pure hearsay.

Assertions with no substantiation. Excuse me while I appear to weep to hide my smirk.

All Christians are priests under Jesus our high priest... there are no classes of Christians, we are all viewed exactly the same by God.

Not all Xians are priests. Only mature ones, scripturally speaking. And you aren't all viewed exactly the same by God. Not according to scripture. But, HEY don't let biblical facts get in the way of your opinions. I mean, your opinions are so substantial they can be declared with words and no substantiation at all. I'll offer 1 john 1 for substantiation to my claim. Some were in fellowship with God, some weren't. All were saved with Christ as their mediator. Apparently they weren't all viewed the same. I love the vain and smug and their posturing. It makes for such >>>>PLEASANT<<<< and intellectually disstimulating conversations.

And who says I studied alone?... I most certainly did not. 6 years of College (quadruple major) and 4 years of seminary.

Yay!!!!

See my opening line.
I studied alone. I didn't study other man's opinions of scripture. I verified and proofed my work oer and over adn over again as I went.

You, are a nice parrot, but smug and posturing all the same.