Now you know:
In the words of Neil Armstrong:
"That's one small step for a man..."
Posted on 01/27/2013 12:31:22 PM PST by marshmallow
John Cornelius, who is married, will be ordained this weekend -- and sex-free life begins
John Cornelius will be ordained a Roman Catholic priest this weekend — and with the blessing of his wife they're giving up their sex life. Cornelius, a father of three, will become the first married Roman Catholic priest in New York — and Sharyl, his wife of 33-years, has agreed to the whole celibacy thing.
“We have decided to do that voluntarily,” Cornelius told WGRZ-TV. “I have always had friends that are Roman Catholic priests and I appreciate what they've given up to serve God and the priesthood.”
Cornelius, 64, is a former Episcopalian priest who converted three years ago to Catholicism. He said his old church had gotten too liberal for him.
I know of a family that has adopted, I believe, six children, in addition to their biolgoical children.
Ever hear of adoption?
**The Catholic church sends mixed messages.**
Ever hear of loving God above all things?
you should consider changing your tag line to "revolution fan" because the "reformation " reformed nothing.
you cannot reform from the outside, only those who remain within the group can reform. When you choose to leave the group, you beome a revolutionary.
the protestant revolution was based on those who chose to follow false "prophets" like Luther, Wesley, Calvin Zwingley, Henry VIII, etc.
they were wrong then....they still are.
Mary and Joseph did...are they too in violation of the Bible????
“The Bible wasn’t completed until about the year 120, about 90 years after Jesus’ Death. For about 400 years after this it floated around mostly by word of mouth...Since most Christians for most of the time after Jesus didn’t have access to a Bible, have most Christians throughout history been “unBiblical””
ALL Gospels and Epistles were circulated and read aloud as part of worship gatherings in local Churches - this was in addition to 2/3s of revelation existing before the Church began.
In addition, God gave the Church Pastors, Teachers and Elders, as a gift of the Holy Spirit. They functioned from the beginning and continue to function today.
As such, your statement is incorrect. Christians from the beginning of the Church have had Scriptural Truth and were taught to apply it. There have always been those who ignore the truth, despite having it - like the newly minted sexless priest.
“Following the Spirit without the Pope leads to what we have today, the scandal of 40,000 Christian denominations. Jesus wants us to be one with Him and the Father.”
The Pope is unnecessary to Biblical unity - and unnecessary to the Church, since Pope is not a Biblical office.
Jesus’ prayer for our unity was based on being kept in the truth and on our love for all believers - not to denominational identity.
“Mary and Joseph did...are they too in violation of the Bible???? “
If Mary and Joseph abstained from sex after the birth of Jesus Christ, they would have circumvented God’s plan for married couples. The Bible has no teaching of perpetual virginity of Mary. Nor are there any writings from the first 100 years AD from the Apostles that teach this.
nor are there any writings against this...The Catholic church teaches it, the Catholic church is infallible, therefore I believe it.
After Jesus was born Mary and Joseph were just like any other married couple, they had sex, they had children.
Your argument is a misrepresentation. While it true that the printed Bible came out in the 15th century, which was because Gutenberg only invented the printing press in 1450, that does not equate to or sanction ignorance of Scripture any more than it did in the days of OT, when God commanded the Israelites that they set the "commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord your God commanded" forever before them, and to "teach them diligently unto thy children," (Dt. 6:1-9) and the righteous man was described as one whose "delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night," (Psalms 1:2) and numerous teachers for long periods "read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." (Nehemiah 8:8)
This does not mean the majority of the laity were literate, and in fact, unlike such bodies as the MA colonial government who mandated schools so that the populace would not be ignorant of the Scripture, promoting literacy in the Bible did not seem to be a priority form Rome, and she often hindered it.
However, Athanasius of Alexandria ( 298 - 373) listed the complete New Testament canon 27 books for the first time, and the translator Jerome (347 – 420) translated all of the Old and New, while John Chrysostom (347–407) exhorted the laity to "get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers...," and chastens the laity for presuming "the reading of the divine Scriptures" (not simply hearing) appertains to such as monks, while the laity needed it more, and marginalizing them was" far worse than not reading," The context of his of the exhortation in Ephesians is the home life, and on that he says not "hear" but "study the Scriptures," while on Col. 3:16 he exhorts "the reading of the Scriptures and that not to be done lightly, nor in any sort of way, but with much earnestness." More
Thus whether by reading and or hearing, literacy in Scripture was the goal, and it is abundantly evidenced that the Scriptures were the transcendent material standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims, and that the Lord claims of Christ and the apostles were established upon Scriptural attestation in word and in power, not appeal to an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Since most Christians for most of the time after Jesus didn’t have access to a Bible, have most Christians throughout history been “unBiblical”? Most Christians for most of history followed the voice of the Church.
You answered your own question. While not excluding that the body of Christ continued thru some members, as salvation requires more of the heart than the head, (Ps. 34:18) how else would Catholics agree to things from praying the departed to torturing and killing merely theological dissidents, if it were not because Rome has usurped the supernaturally established Scriptures as the supreme authority?
Or is your argument that being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation mean you are the assuredly infallible interpreters of it, and that no one has spiritual authority apart from their sanction, or in opposition to it?
And wasn’t it the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that settled on the books of the Bible in the first place?
And when did Rome provide an infallible, indisputable canon of Scripture? And does this mean all those who deviate from this have no legitimacy, or what does it mean?
When I’ve discussed these things with Protestants, they inevitably say the early Christians followed the Holy Spirit. But what happens when disagreements pop up.
And Rome is one church among many who claim that they uniquely followed the Holy Spirit correctly. What is the basis for your full assurance that Rome is the one true church?
Peter and Paul disagreed.
Yes, and they both disagreed with Rome. Tell me where either taught that the office of Peter was assuredly infallible, when speaking according to the infallible *scope and subject-based) criteria of Rome? (And what place in the kingdom of God do those have who disagree with that?)
Where did Peter or Paul refer to Peter as the supreme ruler of the church, or even remind them to pray for Peter as such, or teach that his chair and that of all the apostles were to be formally passed on?
Where did they or anyone example or teach to pray to anyone in heaven but God (without resorting to problematic extrapolation), or distinctively title pastors "priests," or that all clergy (with rare exceptions) were expected to have the gift of celibacy, etc.?
Following the Spirit without the Pope leads to what we have today, the scandal of 40,000 Christian denominations. Jesus wants us to be one with Him and the Father.
I can see that you are new here. In any case since your premise is that dissent from Rome and its pope negates ecclesiastical authenticity, what makes Rome the one true church over other particular sola ecclesia churches which also claim to be the one true church based upon their interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition? Again, what is the basis for your assurance?
Moreover, how can you claim greater unity than other particular churches, especially when Catholics can and do disagree on multiple things , besides the things they are not supposed to but are effectively allowed to (treating even the most liberal as members in life and in death), and her members testify to less unity in core truths and moral views than her evangelical counterparts?
Do you really think organizational structure and paper unity (and unity in error), and which requires implicit assent of faith is superior in quality to the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared conversion and relationship with the Lord Jesus?
The reality is that there are disagreements and divisions under sola ecclesia as well as sola (or prima) Scriptura (Scripture being supreme), and the difference being in degrees, while the unity of the diverse growing NT church was not based on assured veracity as per Rome, much less her use of the sword, but upon Scriptural substantiation.
And which allows that they will be competition, but overcomes it by "manifestation of the truth in word and in power, (2Cor. 4:2) that it is the church of the living God, which the evangelical gospel has historically manifested far more than its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant.
"For the kingdom of God is not in word [self-declaration], but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:20) And "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4)
As for your 40,000 Christian denominations parroted polemic, see here ,
No they didn’t. Jesus is an only child. Where are you getting these ideas?
The quotes in the Bible about brothers and sisters refer to brethren or relatives.
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary so important to Catholics? [Ecumenical Vanity]
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
But as TC just affirmed, it does not matter if Scripture describes marriage as "cleaving," and sanctions abstinence just for a short time in marriage, and other things mentioned above, and manifests extraordinary aspects of its subjects (from having more than 10 fingers to sinlessness) but says nothing about Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin; if Rome sees nothing contrary to it, then since she has declared herself infallible, therefore RCs must believe it, as if it were from God Himself, and are not to seek to verify it by Scripture.
With that, they can forget about converting those who seek to be like the noble Bereans.
You are making the claim that Mary and Joseph were not a typical married couple, you show me in the Bible where it says they did not live as husband and wife.
There is no reason to not beleive that not only did they have sex, they had other children.
Obviously I disagree with your position. Otherwise, I would no longer be Protestant.
I haven’t heard of anyone in the Reformation named Zwingley but I do know of one named Zwingli. I’m quite fond of the work of Luther, Calvin and Knox. Not so fond of Henry VIII who I believe would’ve stayed with Rome if they had granted his divorce to Catherine of Aragon. Also, if memory serves me right, Henry VIII opposed Luther as well. Wesley’s theology a bit too Arminian for me.
My fondness for the Reformation has never prevented me from working with Roman Catholic individuals on issues that we share common ground with or from voting for Roman Catholic political candidates who share my views on life, liberty and the natural family.
Now you know:
In the words of Neil Armstrong:
"That's one small step for a man..."
Indeed a target rich environment!
Unless you are Marry and Joseph.
Right 'church'?
It's WAY too late to worry about this now!
Their or HER's?
Well... if your chosen 'scripture' disagrees with what the CHRUCH teaches...
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.