Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Cronos]

Yes, Iscool -- your purpose here is to show people the sheer lies that attack Christ's Church and to remind them that Christ promised that the world would hate His Church.

By coming up with such inaccuracies, repeating utter falsehoods (unknowingly), which are easily proven wrong, you serve in making people stronger in the Catholic Faith. You and the others, by repeating the crazy tales which are disproved over and over again, actually help gain more converts to The Church, to Christian Faith.

Congratulations...

[Cronos]

BB — the ones executed by secular authorities were those who denied the basic fundamentals of Christianity as a whole, as encapsulated in the Creed. When the Protestant countries came along, anyone belonging to the opposite side was a potential traitor to the country as well, hence the atrocities on both sides

[D-fendr]

the Bible interprets itself

Is yours in Greek?

[Iscool]

Well color me amazed...

[Cronos]

I'm guessing your bit is about celibacy, so let's leave that for last, let's see the other points:
1. Bish shold be blameless, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to given, no striker, not greedy, but patient, not a brawler etc. --> now probably many Leaders both Catholic and otherwise fail at this.

About the celibacy bit:
1. There are Eastern Catholic priests and Orthodox priests who have wives (but they need to be married before joining the priesthood)
2. verses 2's emphasis is that the bishop (overseer) must have at the most one wife. It does not say that he must have a wife. Similarly verse 4 says that he must be able to manage his family and children, it does not say that he must have children. For E. Catholic and EO priests who are married men before they become priests, yes, these criteria are literally followed. For those who are NOT married before they become priests, would you argue that they must get married before priesthood?

3. Matthew 19:12

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

4. Celibacy is a discipline, not a central dogma (hence we have married Eastern Catholic priests), the origins of which date back to the early Middle Ages, when the monks were held in high esteem and people found it easy to crib about the local Vicar and his wife (just as one would find the same in Victorian England if you read any Victorian or Edwardian novels) -- whether true or not. It was also believed that an unmarried man or woman could better devote themselves to God (just like that interesting Seinfeld episode "The Abstinence"!) --> whether you believe that or not, that's what people in the early middle ages did, hence the origins of celibacy (the opposite is viewed in the heresy of Nicolaism)

5. Married men may be ordained deacons (but unmarried deacons cannot get married post ordination)

[Cronos]

The thing is that it does not go against scripture. Scripture does not say he has to be married, only that, if married, he should have only one wife and be able to manage order in his house. It says "husband of one wife" not "must be married".

Saying that, if there is a married man who wishes to become a Catholic priest and he follows the precepts listed in Timothy,then yes, we welcome him to any Eastern Catholic Church as a priest.

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,

7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am

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. In the Assyrian Church, in the 5th century they changed the rule to having married priests, but acknowledged that they had changed an existing precept.

[Cronos]

I disagree with you (about married Bishops) on a historical and anecdotal level --> if you check through history and find married men as bishops, most do try to "get something for their own" as a bishop's job is also very administrative and has a lot of responsibility.

Married priests, well, yes, I do see advantages in the Eastern Catholic Churchs, but not married bishops (as I see in Lutheran, Anglican etc. groups)

[Cronos]

The thing is that that opens up an entire can of worms over whether Christ has one or two natures, if He is God or not, or if his natures are separated or one, or if He was a “phantasm” (as Islam believes in one case — yes, there are two Islamic beliefs on Isa!)

[dsc]

“And currently, there is a very large group of Catholics including bishops and cardinals who are pushing for the Catholic church to claim Mary as part of the Godhead...”

Howls, Bruce. Howls of derisive laughter at that nonsensical fabrication.

(Gunther Toody mode ON)

Oooh, Oooh, let me try one. How about this:

Protestants believe that Heaven is actually located on a planet that orbits Rigel.

Wow, that was fun. You can say all kinds of fun stuff if you don’t have the slightest regard for the truth. No wonder you guys do it all day long.

[dsc]

“I imagine He loved his Mother about how I loved my Mother...And you love(d) your Mother...”

Hmmm...so, if your love is equal to God’s, how about your mercy, justice, and wisdom?

Echoes of Original Sin...

[Cronos]

are more Evangelicals than Roman Catholics in the country.

1. the OPC is not "Evangelical"
2. Presbyterianism as a whole (from which the OPC, your group partly originates) is not "Evangelical"
3. Evangelicalism in the US derives from Methodism which is closer to Arminian and to orthodoxy in Christian soteriology

[Cronos]

Hi DV, please could you repost the Patrick Madrid article on sola scriptura? I was away for a couple of days and woo — a lot of posts to sift through.

[Cronos]

It was spelled out. More importantly, Jesus Christ raised up another apostle, named him Paul and gave Revelations that had never been given before. They were called the mystery. They had been hidden since the foundation of the world. Until first revealed to Paul

Ok, you say Paul was the chosen one.

[Cronos]

Paul led the church...Peter went on out into obscurity with the instruction to teach the Jews, who were relatively few in number...

1. +Paul died in Rome as well.
2. +Paul never "led the Church" -- he was an important missionary -- to the gentiles, yes,
3. 1st century Christianity was still heavily Jewish and would remain so until the fall of the second temple in 69 AD. According to the Church History, written by Eusebius, the line of Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem ended after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136) when Hadrian renamed the city "Aelia Capitolina" and barred all Jews except for the day of Tisha B'Av. After that, the Jerusalem bishops were gentiles.

[Cronos]

Mark: It was the anti Catholic Council of Jamnia 60 years after Jesus died,

Od Reggie: There could have been no "anti Catholic" anything in 60AD. There was no such thing as a Catholic Church.
...
The Council of Jamnia compiled the only valid Scripture. The Hebrew Scripture.

1. Jesus died around 30 AD, and the council of Jamnia was in 90 AD, not as you suggest 60 AD
2. In 60 AD and in 90 AD there was The Catholic Church, a Church led by The Apostles and their successors. This Catholic and Apostolic Church is now the various Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and Assyrian branches of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church
3. If you say that there was no valid Hebrew scripture before Jamnia, then you completely discount all that Jesus says as well as Paul's saying about all scripture being good

[Cronos]

Good question -- and one that led to the iconoclasm debate in 730-787 in Byzantium. Sometime between 726-730, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian began the iconoclast campaign. He ordered the removal of an image of Jesus prominently placed over the Chalke gate, the ceremonial entrance to the Great Palace of Constantinople, and its replacement with a cross.

Empress Irene, mother of Constantine VI decided that an ecumenical council needed to be held to once and for all address the issue of Iconoclasm and directed this request to Pope Hadrian I (772-795) in Rome. He announced his agreement and caused one to convene on 1 August 786 in the presence of the Emperor and Empress.

The council declared:

we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message. ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult object

The ones against iconoclasm argued that:
1. Assertion that the biblical commandment forbidding images of God had been superseded by the incarnation of Jesus, who, being the second person of the Trinity, is God incarnate in visible matter. Therefore, they were not depicting the invisible God, but God as He appeared in the flesh
2. idols depicted persons without substance or reality while icons depicted real persons. Essentially the argument was "all religious images not of our faith are idols; all images of our faith are icons to be venerated." This was considered comparable to the Old Testament practice of only offering burnt sacrifices to God, and not to any other gods
3. Moses had been instructed by God according to Exodus 25:18-22 to make golden statues of cherubim angels on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, and according to Exodus 26:31 God instructed Moses to embroider the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle with cherubim

[Cronos]

Yes, first among equals — primus inter pares.

[Cronos]

Where exactly did you get that the Republic Romans were sun worshippers? The primary religion was to Venus (since the Romans believed they were descended from her),Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and Janes.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘You know like how this mentality gave support to obscene things like 0’s deathcare they supported’.

A small point, perhaps, but the Catholic Church in America opposed Obamacare vociferously. Certain Catholic groups including the organization of Catholic hospitals supported it, but they do not and cannot speak for the Church.

[Cronos]

Ah, we have some more words of wizzdom from the good doctor: Dr. E: "I think on his deathbed, unconscious, Wayne was made pope"

now, we know where all the anti-Catholic screeds come from -- little green men who meet our anti-Church posters in their dreams when they are traipsing through a multi-colored candyland (multi-colored fonts too!)